Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:32, 14 August 2024 editBarkeep49 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators41,397 edits →Result concerning האופה: re:nableezy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:44, 22 January 2025 edit undoEkdalian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,207 edits →Statement by Ekdalian: clean up 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
Line 6: Line 5:
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =337 |counter =347
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 13: Line 12:
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} }}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}


==שלומית ליר==
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
{{hat|There is a rough consenus of uninvolved administrators to close this as moot given subsequent topic ban. ] (]) 15:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>


===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Emdosis}} – ] (]) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : for WP:ECR violations, imposed at
],
<nowiki>  logged at</nowiki>
{{Plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&logid=163307397|name=16:34, 21 July 2024}}

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}

; Notification of that administrator : Yeah, I'm aware. ] (]) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Emdosis===

I was about to post the following to ] when I saw I got banned. I'll post it here instead:
(topic:])
<blockquote>"The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed"</blockquote>
I'm guessing it's so broad that it includes user talk pages, and going even further, that it would allow a non-admin to remove an edit on another user's talk page (even though that would clash with ]).
(To be very clear, I absolutely did not add that comment on Joe Roe's page knowingly violating ECR rules)

===Statement by Emdosis<sup>2</sup>===
Just found out the original block wasn't even applicable under the ARBPIA decision to begin with:
<blockquote>]
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ] topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
{{ordered list|type=lower-alpha
|1=
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
|2=
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces '''with the exception of userspace''' ("related content")
}}
:''Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)''</blockquote>
] (]) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC){{br}}
{{Re|Theleekycauldron}}{{br}}
{{code|"I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case."}}{{br}}
Idk. To me, 'Userspace' means all space. Not just 'Userpage'.{{br}}
{{code|"...seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that}} ] {{code|falls outside of the CT regime."}}{{br}}
And? Can you please point me to the part in the ] page that explains the exception to the exception as being "if it is contentious"? You know damn well no-one is going to read all of ], let alone ]. It would have been helpful if, instead of just a long and pedantic essay that reads like a legal document, it would simply say (in the first paragraph) what the goal of the restrictions are, and the scope of it. Because it seems to me you guys keep on increasing the scope of the restrictions (which weren't clearly defined to begin with) with every follow-up. It's also not clear (based on admin activity) what the purpose, or more precisely, the scope of the purpose, is. What are we trying to prevent here? Is ] what we're trying to prevent here? ] (]) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
Just noting that I have as well, for ] editing and casting aspersions. ] (]) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Emdosis ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by BilledMammal====
Emdosis made a comment that was in violation of ECR, it was reverted, and they reinstated despite discussion on their talk page saying they shouldn't. Reasonable block.

Emdosis, if I can give you some advice; this sanction is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. I suggest that you withdraw this appeal and instead accept it. In a week, when it expires, you can return, make 200 productive edits and non-trivial edits in other topic areas, and join this topic area if you are still interested in doing so. Don't earn yourself a more permanent sanction over trying to contribute to the topic area a couple of weeks early.

I realize you're only 100 edits from ECR, but I suggest 200 just to avoid any controversy in the future over the edits you made within the topic area contributing to you earning ECR.

In addition, I see you cited ]; for inexperienced editors, IAR is a trap that will only get you in trouble. Eventually you'll realize when it's appropriate to apply, but for now, especially within contentious topic areas, I suggest you stay well clear of it. ] (]) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Selfstudier====
I know that in theory all blocks are appealable but I will say it again, non EC editors arguing about EC restrictions should not have any standing at this board. By the time we are done here, the block will have run its course. ] (]) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{Re|Barkeep}} How to resolve the technicality, although I would have thought the later should override the earlier in case of ambiguity? An ARCA? ] (]) 09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Zero0000====
In my opinion, the belief that userspace edits are not in the ARBPIA topic area is well founded. Not only was the exclusion of userspace passed 6-0 by the ] that defined the topic area, but it is stated explicitly in the ] which is specified at ] (footnote 2) as the topic areas which are covered. Once userspace is deemed outside the topic area, even phrases like "all pages in the topic area" do not include it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

===Result of the appeal by Emdosis===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*Given the subsequent topic-ban, this appeal regarding the scope of ECR would seem to be moot. Any objection to closing on that basis? ] (]) 14:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*Hmm. Good question NYB. I think in the end I have no objections. However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here. ] (]) 15:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
* Fine with closing as moot as well, and endorse SFR's topic ban. I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case – seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that ] falls outside of the CT regime. We can drag this to ARCA if we have to, but just agreeing that the filer made a vexatious argument is easier. ] (] • she/her) 16:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==ABHammad==
{{hat|There is a rough consensus that ABHammad has been engaging in battleground behavior and as an attempt to stop that without going to a full topic ban, is subjected to a ]. ] (]) 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning ABHammad===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|ABHammad}}<p>{{ds/log|ABHammad}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of ''how'' these edits violate it :

"Tag-team" edit warring at ] over "colonization", a continuation of the edit war discussed above at ], which closed July 11 ("A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report."). I won't repeat what I wrote there at ].
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
* Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list): {{u|מתיאל}} ], {{u|Kentucky Rain24}} ], {{u|האופה}} (not to be confused with User:מתיאל) ], ], '''] (])''', {{u|O.maximov}} ], ], {{u|Galamore}} ], ], ''']''', ], ], {{u|Icebear244}} ], , ''']'''
* For context: they've made 16 edits total to this article , they are (not in chronological order):
** The 4 edits linked above
** ]: removing a source ('']'') and replacing it with {{t|dubious}}
** ], ]: making a bold edit and later reinstating part of it
** ], ], ], ], ]: adding "we were here first" content
** The remaining 4 are innocuous: ], ], ], ]
* 2 talk page edits , both in May: ] claims that ] and ] like ] and ] often present fringe views; the ] doubles down.
Other examples at other articles:
* April-May at ]
** ], ], ''']'''
** No other edits to the article
** One talk page edit to ] in the related RFC.
* May-June at ]
** ], ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ''']''', ]
** No other edits to the article
** 2 talk page posts : ], ]
* June at ]
** To remove "indigenous": ], ''']''', {{u|Owenglyndur}} ], ''']'''
** To remove "native": ''']''', ], ], ''']'''
** No other edits to the article
** 3 talk page edits , all in June: the ] says Palestinians are not native to Palestine; the ] ] are about ONUS and edit warring.
* June at ]
** ], ], ''']'''
** No other edits to the article or talk page edits
* June at ]
** {{u|XDanielx}} ], '''] (])'''
** No other edits to the article
** 6 talk page edits all on June 24, mostly advancing the ] (], ])
* July at ]
** ], ], ''']'''
** No other edits to this article or talk page edits
* July at ]
** ], ''']'''
** No other edits to this article or talk page edits
* July at ]
** ], ''']'''
** No other edits to this article or talk page edits
Since July 8, ABHammad has made five edits , they are:
* Zionism edits #7, #16, and "Jul 21", all linked above
* July at ] (related article: ])
** {{ul|Uppagus}} (5 mos, 647 edits as of now) ], {{ul|EliasAntonakos}} (3 weeks, 93 edits) ], ], ''']'''
** No other edits to this article or talk page
* July at ]
** Reinstating removed content on ] (added by someone else ], removed ])
** No other edits to this article or talk page


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
Previous UTP discussions between us (permalinks): ], ], ] (]). ] (]) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it .
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why.
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content .
**they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
]
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above).
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a , , , and . They've also been . If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is ) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Re Vegan's comment: I don't think Vegan misunderstood me, I think they are intentionally twisting my words. If I say "We are witnessing climate change", it obviously doesn't mean I support climate change. And nobody would confuse "settlement dismantlement" for "the dismantling of Israel". Unfortunately this is not the first time Vegan has tried to "catch" me with this kind of rhetorical gamesmanship, recently at Talk:Zionism: ], ], ]. This may be because I ]. ] (]) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:{{tqq|one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli society}} is another example of the rhetorical gamesmanship/twisting of words, now aimed at another editor. Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society. Equating "the end of Zionism" with "dismantling of Israeli society" is no different than equating "settlement dismantlement" with "dismantlement of Israel." Basically it's an attempt to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Sound familiar? I believe it's nothing other than trolling/baiting. The point is to derail this report and take the focus off of the reported editor by creating new endless arguments, just like Vegan's bludgeoning behavior I complained about earlier. Admins, please put a stop to this. ] (]) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{tqq|the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society}} is not the same thing as {{tqq|the dismantling of Israeli society}}. There is more to Israel than settler colonialism; neither Israel nor any other Jewish homeland needs to be a colonial settler society. Calling for an end to Israel's occupation and apartheid is not the same thing as calling for an end to Israel itself. ] (]) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::FTR, still continuing with this ideological purity test, now on ]: {{tqq|And still above all you simply refuse to say the simple words "I don't wish for the end of Zionism". Why is that?}} I'm of course not going to take this bait, my political beliefs are irrelevant, but I should not have to put up with this in response to filing an AE complaint. ] (]) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::]. ] (]) 16:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:@SFR et al: This is not a single revert, this is a pattern that's lasted for months, since they joined this topic area, that is unlike any other editor I know of in this topic area. This is almost ''nothing but'' tag-team reverting. Of the 5 edits made between when the last AE was closed and this one was opened, 4 of them were tag-team edit-warring (diff'd above). Nobody else's edits have such a high proportion of tag-team edit warring.
:Case in point: two new edits since this AE was opened, one of them a ] (not tag-team) on an article they'd never edited before with no talk page posts . This account seems to exists for the purpose of pressing the "undo" button; I've never seen anybody else press the undo button this often on articles they've never otherwise touched.
:The last AE didn't seem to make any difference to them, nor did these talk page warnings: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. But maybe a formal AE warning will make a difference.
:And that's without getting into the POV stuff, which I think is more serious. We don't ask editors to edit trans-related articles with editors who edit articles to say that sex=gender, nor do we ask editors to edit race and intelligence articles with editors who edit articles to say that Black people are inferior to white people. Why should we ask editors to collaborate with someone who edits articles to say that Palestinians aren't native to Palestine (diff'd above)? ] (]) 17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::@SFR: Sure, if you slice the stack of diffs up and just look at ''one article'', you can say "Well, it takes two (or four) to edit-war!" But now look at Self and Make's edits over the last 3 months. You will not find them tag-teaming anywhere near as frequently, and not on articles that they've never touched before or since. None of the PIA "regulars" do this in this frequency. That's why there a big pile of diffs: it's an overall pattern, it's not a one-off thing. I mean this is a dozen articles here, and it's not even everything, it's just what I'm aware of. It's not even the entirety of the EIA (should you want to run that, look at how many 1's are on that table, for any combination of this group of editors). ] (]) 17:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:Man, this "enforce it topic-wide" line of argument bothers me. This is a report that shows diffs of a pattern of disruptive editing. Enforce ''this''. The idea that we shouldn't enforce our policies because they're also violated elsewhere by others is... Because you can't say "file a report" and then when a report is filed, say "well other people do it too". What do you want me to do? Diff out ''everybody's'' disruption or nobody's? If there is disruption elsewhere, let someone spend the hours collecting diffs and filing an AE report. ] (]) 18:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::@SFR Fair enough, and FTR I appreciate that admins ''are'' paying attention to this, thank you. ] (]) 18:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:Another day, another POV ]. ] (]) 15:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::@]: I couldn't figure that out exactly, either, but much of it is a revert of recent edits by Iskander and Astropulse. The edit summary was {{tqq|restoring important, well sourced material by scholars and leading analysts}}, meanwhile it ''removed'' the sentence "Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning to commit genocide", which was sourced to Damien Short's book about genocide and an article in Journal of Genocide Studies (so it removed scholarship, not restored it). Meanwhile, it restored content about the opinions of ] and ], neither of which are scholars or leading analysts. It restored the lead image to the blood-stain image (which was a change made on Jul 16 by Nice4What). It changed "Hoffman opined that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions" to the less neutral phrasing "Hoffman underscored the significance of the 1988 Hamas charter, asserting that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions and demonstrated a lack of interest in "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace." It added content about the Hamas Charter to the Background section. There were a bunch of changes in addition to that, it seems. It's a tough diff to read, I'm not sure entirely if everything was "restored" or if some of it was new. ] (]) 16:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::And following the pattern, that's their one and only edit to the article and they've never edited the talk page . ] (]) 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

]
===Discussion concerning ABHammad=== ===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by ABHammad==== ====Statement by שלומית ליר====
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the other editors mentioned, but I can confirm that I have no connection with them. It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. This is evident from his recent, deeply inflammatory comment that we are , and their edit warring, both leaving no question regarding their views on the IP conflict.
: I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.
Levivich's complaint appears to be exactly over what Misplaced Pages expects its editors to do: debate content, and when it comes to POV-pushing, reject the disruptive addition of controversial information forcibly added without, or before consensus is reached. The reverts Levivich shows were made in response to:
* Attempts to push the controversial framing of ] as colonialism in Misplaced Pages's voice, despite the lack of consensus on this matter. This was done anyway due to consistent edit warring by several editors, including Levivich (, a revert which also saw them attacking other accounts just for being "new"). The article now uses colonization in Wiki voice at the very first sentence.
As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.
* Attempts to remove maps of ] and info on Jewish identity
* Attempts to describe the events in ] in Misplaced Pages's voice, unfortunately also successful
While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.
If anything, the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Misplaced Pages, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them. This complaint is just the latest in a series of attempts to silence opposition and force a single, biased pov over all of the Israel-Palestine area in Misplaced Pages, which truthfully, has lost all neutrality due to the above conduct. ] (]) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. ] (]) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Thebiguglyalien====
:@] what has been noted on ] is quite similar to other experienced I had. Take for example ], where a new framing of it as "the colonization of a land outside of Europe", was implemented through edit warring by experienced editors in June and July, against consensus and while discussions are still ongoing. In these and other articles mentioned above (another example is ]), my reverts were to the consensus version, not to a preferred new version. Vanamonde93, I want to emphasize that this was not about being 'correct on the ideological issues' but about preventing forceful changes made against consensus. I would really ask what should one do in cases like this. ] (]) 12:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report


====Statement by Selfstudier==== ====Statement by Selfstudier====
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Re|ABHammad}} {{tq|the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Misplaced Pages, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them.}} If this is the real issue, then evidence, please. At the moment it appears from the evidence presented that it may be yourself that is engaged in ] rather than others. Perhaps comment at the same time re ] about {{tq|your edit blatantly promotes false information}} and ] about {{tq|You are going against consensus and the principles of collaborative editing. Taking it to my talk page instead of collaborating on the talk page instead feels like bullying and harassment}}. ] (]) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}}{{tq| The current consensus version seems to match the POV of ABHammad and האופה.}} Apart from the fact that I had valid reasons for reversion, that's not even true. On the weaponization matter, the current state is as I wished it (that is the link is included, not excluded, and I helped workshop the RFC that led to that conclusion). So, please, find another rabbit to hunt. ] (]) 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::While I am at it, where is the response to the questions I posed? We have an editor casting aspersions left and right and that passes us by? ] (]) 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::: {{Re|Levivich}} I don't understand that revert, what is it exactly, it seems that many things have been changed, is it just going back to a previous version of the page? ] (]) 15:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

::::{{Re|Barkeep49}} Editor Levivich has made a decent fist of trying to pin it down, the bulk of it is as he says and editor Iskandar that all of his edits were reverted, no matter the reason they gave for removal in the first place, while the business about the image should have been subject of talk page discussion, the edit even reverts notelist and reflist (!), presumably to some prior version and I know not why. I will try to dissect it further but it will take some time and frankly, this sort of editing is uninspiring however it was manufactured.] (]) 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint (2)==== ====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
{{re|ABHammad}} you say that {{red|It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view.}} - but this complaint is about you, instead of pointing to anyone else who disagrees with Levivich. Your response fails to dispel the notion of ] conduct. ''']] (])''' 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)


I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{re|Sean.hoyland}} is absolutely right, in fact the offsite recruitment on Israel subforums has already occurred multiple times in the past week. See , and . ''']] (])''' 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also agree with {{u|KoA}}, I am not at all impressed by the jumping to conclusions and doubling down by {{u|Vegan416}} at this venue. In the very same week where the International Court of Justice Israel had "{{tq|an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers}}", Vegan416 is claiming that {{purple|settlement disbandment}} means the {{red|dismantling of Israel}}. ''']] (])''' 23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

{{u|Vegan416}} stressed that {{red|it is worth considering motivations when evaluating the case}}. Even after the strikeouts, Vegan416 stresses that Levivich is apparently {{red|trying to push his ... anti-Zionist views}}, and still discussing whether Levivich does {{red|wish for the end of Zionism.}} What is the '''relevance''' of this? Sanctioning ABHammad (or not) will not end Zionism, does not dismantle Israel, and does not dismantle Israeli society. Separately, let's say editor '''X''' has a personal view that there should be a one-state solution to the conflict, combining all inhabitants of Israel, Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank as equal citizens of one new state: Isgazjerubank. Should editor '''X''' never file reports at WP:AE then for being 'anti-Zionist'? ''']] (])''' 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
As a general point, beliefs resembling the "If anything..." statements by ABHammad are essentially conspiracy theories. They are corrosive. They are used to rationalize all sorts of non-constructive and destabilizing activities in the topic area like sockpuppetry, edit warring, tag-teaming, non-compliance with ECR, email canvassing, vote stacking and off-site campaigning and recruitment. They are self-sustaining beliefs used to justify rule-breaking that have a long association with disruption here. They should probably be actively suppressed.


====Statement by xDanielx==== ====Statement by xDanielx====
{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.
{{yo|Selfstudier}} with regard to the ] dispute in particular, I think the evidence {{yo|Vegan416|p=}} collected makes it pretty clear that we have diverged from a neutral viewpoint. It is surprising to see Zionism referred to as colonization, in wikivoice with no qualifications, when there's a ] of notable scholars who take issue with that characterization.


That said, NPOV issues should be fixed through consensus-building discussions, and ABHammad's recent contributions do seem to involve too many reverts with too little discussion. Since this is recent and their broader history seems more constructive, I think they should be given a chance to change this behavior, but it seems they may need a reminder that ] is not limited to 1RR/3RR. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC) In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the , but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
{{yo|Iskandar323}} yes the 1RR violation Selfstudier pointed out is clear, but it involved a ~21 hour gap, and ABHammad self-reverted when it was pointed out. Seems like a timing error. Regarding the other instance, I'm not sure would be considered a revert? It seems like any deletion might technically fit under the broad definitions of reverts given in ] and elsewhere, but at least there wasn't a specific recent change being reverted here (the closest seems to be , almost a month ago). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on
@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}}
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Vegan416 ==== ====Statement by Cdjp1====
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I object to this AE request as I had objected to the AE request against Nishidani. In this case, it is clear that Levivich is just trying to push his <s>extreme eliminationist</s> anti-Zionist views<s>, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism"</s>.
:{{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} I'll just put here a fuller quote of Levivich : "The return of left-wing parties to power is just one election away, and settlement dismantlement will soon follow. We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism". It looks to me that he wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel which he regards as a colonial "settlement". Of course, if I misunderstood him he is welcome to clarify his words. Until that happens I don't see any reason to rephrase. ] (]) 20:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Levivich}} I notice that you still do not say explicitly that you do not wish for the end of Zionism. And when you promote the view that Israel is the outcome of settler-colonialism and then speak of "settlement dismantlement" in the '''singular''' it is natural to think you are talking about dismantling of Israel. All in all, your language here about the last gasps of Zionism, which is completely disconnected from reality, doesn't sound like a report about reality, but rather as wishful thinking that reminds one of Iranian rhetoric like that one "" (update: especially when you link it to the "last gasps of Zionism"). And thanks for reminding me of your false accusations about my entering a debate just to bludgeon it, including some fancy libelous hints (which I refuted) about how I came into that discussion in the first place. I still ask for an apology for that. ] (]) 21:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
: In answer to various new comments: 1. I reject the false accusation of McCarthyism. I didn't say that any administrative actions should be taken against Levivich. In fact, as I have proven in the recent Nishidani AE, I am firmly against taking administrative actions against editors, even when their opinions are loathsome to me, and even when their behavior is problematic (except for cases of extreme abuse, which none of the involved parties here, from either side, seems to be implicated in). 2. I only say that when someone is trying to initiate administrative actions to suppress other editors, as Levivich does here, it is worth considering his motivations when evaluating the case. 3. We can see that one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli society, and another veteran editor seems to see that as a legitimate wish. So the possibility that yet another veteran editor holds this view is not far-fetched, and Levivich himself still uses equivocal language about this issue. Despite that, I'm willing to give Levivich himself the benefit of the doubt, so I stroke some of the words in my initial comment. ] (]) 06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Levivich}} 1. "Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society". Apparently, you missed RolnaldR statement : "And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do wish for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society." 2. Your argument about trolling is just as false. This is a serious argument. 3. If you felt that my statement was drawing focus from your request, then you could just ignore it. After all, we humble editors don't have any vote in here, only the admins. Or you could simply have said from the beginning that you don't wish for the end of Zionism. That would have finished the discussion. That's what I do when I think someone attributes to me something that I don't think. Instead, you are just lengthening the discussion with your still evasive language. ] (]) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Levivich}} You are continuing the discussion even as you complain that it is a distraction. I responded to you on my talk page , so that you don't falsely accuse me of bludgeoning and trolling again, and I suggest that we continue the discussion there if you are interested. ] (]) 16:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|starship.paint}} As for your question - I didn't say that anyone should be blocked from requesting AE. But if someone asks to "punish" editors who oppose his views, then I think his motives should be considered when deciding whether to accept his request. And I see that in the recent AE request about Nishsidani, there was a discussion about the motives of the complainer, and it didn't look irrelevant to most participants. But anyway, I trust the admins to decide what they consider relevant. And if they think that my argument is irrelevant then they will ignore it. Which is fine by me. And with that I end my participation in this discussion here (unless someone will insist on involving me again).


====Statement by KoA==== ====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Not involved in the subject, and honestly I've been at odds with Levivich with behavioral things in the past, but it's apparent to even me that Vegan416's comments here towards Levivich are pretty inflammatory as a sort of potshot/aspersion or an attempt at a rhetorical gotcha as Levivich describes it. That does come across to me as Vegan416 being at least one editor raising the temperature in this topic. There's a clear ] attitude in those comments, and usually CT designations are meant to help keep such editors out of controversial areas.


====Statement by Vice regent====
Even I know referencing Zionism is a charged word that anyone editing the topic should know better than to use it loosely in rhetoric. Maybe Levivich's "last gasp" comment had a tinge of a POV to it or was a little ], but the way Vegan416 grabbed onto the Zionism mention to make a leap to assertions on dismantling Israel and asserting that in a "Maybe I'm wrong, but . . . " style comment without evidence really rubs me the wrong way. I do feel like you'd have to have a ] to make that jump from what I'm actually reading in Levivich's comments. If Levivich was actually doing what Vegan416 claims (I sure don't see it), then they would have presented actual evidence of it and how that has affected the topic rather than the type of assertions I'm seeing here. Instead, Vegan's comments to ] leave me concerned they'd just double down in the future instead. ] (]) 22:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Nableezy==== ====Statement by (username)====
We are not supposed to be discussing our own or others personal political beliefs, but I for one find outrageous the McCarthyist {{tq|I notice that you still do not say explicitly that you do not wish for the end of Zionism}}, and further object to the idea that wishing such a thing is somehow either relevant or incompatible with participation here. So what if he does wish that? You ever wonder why we have no Palestinian editors in this topic area? Things like this. ''']''' - 23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Dan Murphy====
"... Iranian rhetoric like that one 'Israel Drawing Its Last Breaths, Says Iranian Commander Behind Foiled Drone Attack.'" Subtle! ] (]) 23:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
====Statement by RolandR====
It is not only Levivich that believes that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist project. In a in New Left Review, Israeli historian ] argues that "We are witnessing a historical process – or, more accurately, the beginnings of one – that is likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism." Vegan416 is entitled to disagree with this assessment, but not to smear and delegitimise anyone who shares it. And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do wish for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society. It is a perfectly legitimate belief. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Iskandar323====
Aside from the general behaviours mentioned, including a lot of reverting, aren't there two very specific instances of very clear and very knowingly performed ] breaches on templated pages after the user was aware? The first is mentioned by SelfStudier, and the second is visible in the two diffs provided by Levivich, both on the 23 June. That appears to be two blatant breaches in as many months. ] (]) 17:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

:@]: The edit summaries make it plain that they were reverting content based on a disagreement. And yes, material added a month ago counts, especially when it has been contested and is part of a slow-motion edit war. ] (]) 21:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:@]: The 2x 1RR breach in just over a month has been noticed right? Back in my day, phew one could get in trouble for that. ] (]) 18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:It's hard to see how Hammad's doggedly persistent habit of drive-by mass revision and edit warring (with often little to no talk page engagement) can be considered constructive or collegiate, and given the persistence of such behaviours even during this AE, how they are expected to refrain from such behaviours with only a slap on the wrist. ] (]) 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

===Result concerning ABHammad===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*The edit-warring is concerning, but more concerning is what appears to be removal or negation of ''a priori'' reliable sources without apparent justification besides ideological leaning. ABHammad, your entire argument as presented here appears to be that your conduct was justified because you believe yourself correct on the ideological issues, which is not a persuasive argument if you wish to continue editing this topic. ] (]) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC) *Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@SFR, my concern above is almost independent of the number of reverts; ABHammad is bringing a battleground attitude to this topic, which to me indicates they're not going to be a net positive within it. I think a logged warning for battleground conduct is the minimum we should consider: tag-teaming is secondary to me (and much harder to legislate against, as you say). ] (]) 18:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC) *:The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. ] (]) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. ] (]) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Vanamonde93}}, if you'd like to see a topic ban, {{tq|the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Misplaced Pages, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them}} is enough to get me there, as that is plain battleground editing. I just think we need to be holding everyone to these standards. This is not an uncommon type of statement, and the topic is full to the brim with battleground mentality. ] (]) 18:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm okay with a logged warning, and won't advocate for a TBAN given that you are BK49 appear to be less in favor of one. But I think the emphasis needs to be on the battleground issues, not tag-teaming as such. ] (]) 19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC) *:::The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of ] I would consider something more stringent. ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* While I understand {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. ] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the ]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence}}. If an editor is ''only'' adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making ''only'' one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the ''whole article'' is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. ] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ctop|Discussion about Vegan416}}
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|at 17:33, 8 December 2024}}, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
* {{u|Vegan416}}, perhaps you'd like to rephrase {{tq|Levivich is just trying to push his extreme eliminationist anti-Zionist views, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism".}} ] (]) 20:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::* ].
*:I have topic banned Vegan416 from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed for BATTLEGROUND editing, casting aspersions, and inappropriate politicization. I'm still stewing on the actual report. ] (]) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::* ].
* I've read some but not all of what's going on here and hope to have time to fully catch up on this. However, I share ‌Levivich's ] about the ] {{tqq|And still above all you simply refuse to say the simple words "I don't wish for the end of Zionism". Why is that?}}. I hesitate to suggest one absent the fuller context, and about an editor who this report isn't filed about but feel confident in that assessment. ] (]) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ].
{{cbot}}
::* ], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; ]; ].
*:Having now looked into this, my analysis largely agrees with that on Vanamonde. I think there has been enough good faith efforts at collobartive editing to merit a logged warning rather than a harsher sanction. ] (]) 15:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::* ], then ], both to the first line of the article.
*::To be clear, the conduct I would like to warn about is the battleground attitude for the reasons Vanamonde has pointed out on 22 July and 26 July. ] (]) 18:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::* ] and ].
*:Selfstudier what diff is being restored? Because whatever it is is more than weeks old which seems like an inappropriate amount of time to restore a diff from without a talk page consensus. ] (]) 16:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::* On the talk pages, there has been a ] although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
*::This is important to me. Because acting like this while at AE is very troubling for me because as it stands now I see that edit as battleground conduct in multiple ways. It makes me lean towards a topic ban rather than a warning. ] (]) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::* There are then edits to ]: ]; ]. At ], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, ] (]).
*I'm fine with a warning for this, but if we're going to start treating single reverts to an article after someone on the same "side" has reverted as edit warring we'll need to hold ''everyone'' to that standard. There was concern above about even application of ECR, and this is going to open a much larger can of worms than that. ] (]) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:: Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. ] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Levivich}}, taking ] from your examples to illustrate what I'm saying, we see that Selfstudier has reverted twice and Makeandtoss once . The current consensus version seems to match the POV of ABHammad and האופה. How many other articles where Makeandtoss and Selfstudier have both reverted the same content do you think I would find? How many times did would consensus eventually be against their position? Should we warn them for edit warring or POV violations because of this? If we're going to warn someone over this behavior then everyone needs to meet that standard. ] (]) 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::: {{re|xDanielx}} Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to ]. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken ''as a whole'' the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the ''percentage'' of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about ]. ] 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Selfstudier}}, the current consensus falls closer to , which is what I was pointing out. I'm not saying you should be on the hook, but that if we're going to start looking at reverts broadly like this we'll find it all over the place. As to your question {{tq|the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Misplaced Pages, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them}} is bad, and that should certainly be part of any warning, but if you want action on {{tq|your edit blatantly promotes false information}} then, again, that will need to be enforced topic-wide. ] (]) 18:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*The offwiki canvassing is a problem...{{u|שלומית ליר}}, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware ] is not allowed? ] (]) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Levivich}}, I'm echoing what was said by other admins up the page a bit about consistency of enforcement. I'm not saying don't do anything about this, I'm saying that when we do and the next report shows up showing a pattern of editors making the same or similar reverts across multiple pages we can't just shrug it off. ] (]) 18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. ] (]) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:How do we feel about a warning for battleground conduct and 0rr? Or just a topic ban? ] (]) 19:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*I take it that per {{u|Barkeep49}}'s brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (]), and then restoration of the same (]), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*:That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


==Ytyerushalmi== ==Luganchanka==
{{hat|{{user|Ytyerushalmi}} is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. ] (]) 11:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Ytyerushalmi=== ===Request concerning Luganchanka===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Supreme Deliciousness}} 14:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ytyerushalmi}}<p>{{ds/log|Ytyerushalmi}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
*, removes: " internationally recognized as the occupied Palestinian territories."
*, ads that the occupied and disputed city of Jerusalem is in "Israel"

These two edits were made after I notified him about the 500/30 rule , I also asked him to self revert which he declined:


<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.



;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
BLP CTOP warning given
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->

*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August ], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Ytyerushalmi===
===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Ytyerushalmi==== ====Statement by Luganchanka====


The intro on the ] page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I ], it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
According to ] the article should be - "reasonably construed" as in -
:"4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the
:]
: topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
:# the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
:# edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")"
Is Or Sasson the related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, then Judo, Clothing and any other article on Misplaced Pages is related in one way or another to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If one follows your edits, it is clear as day that you are trying to erase as many as possible mentions of Israel. As seen, you reverted my edit to Ori Sasson and Doms in Israel although both Articles are not related to the Conflict. Also, you tried to frame Hanadi Jaradat, a known terrorist, using the ambiguous term "militant" while her actions were objective terrorism.


Please see the ], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Being disputed doesn't change the fact that it is de-facto a part of The State of Israel and under its sovereignty, so he was born in Israel. Again, whether disputed or not, it is a fact that relates to him.
:I removed it from the Dom article because it is not related to the Doms themselves and there's no need to mention it as it discussed further in the subject of the West Bank itself.
:Again, as these two articles are not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict nor the edits were relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict but to the subjects themselves, and therefore, not under the Arbitration rule, I will not revert.


: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First sentence}}. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
If his request is accepted, then each and every namespace with the mention of Israel/Palestine and Any Arab country or any other country which had interaction with the region or the entities above and every object, physical or not, geographical or not, that is directly or indirectly related to any of the mentioned entities above should be under the Extended confirmed protection.


:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small>
*::Oh no I understand, it just seems very absurd considering the edit and the subjects. If you would check, for other subjects which are an actual part of the conflict, such as Hanadi Jaradat, I did not revert his changes.] (]) 17:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)


:: As per ]'s comments:
Regarding Selfstudier - It doesn't seem like you appear to be in an objective position to recommend.


{{tq|"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."}}
====Statement by Selfstudier====

One more in what is turning into a procession of non EC editors contesting without merit ] restrictions. The talk page discussion following the awareness notice is in addition sufficient reason for a sanction. ] (]) 16:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

====Statement by NatGertler====
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per ]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Ytyerushalmi=== ===Result concerning Luganchanka===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*{{u|Ytyerushalmi}}, the edits are clearly related to the Arab/Israel conflict. If you continue to violate ECR you will be blocked.{{pb}}Other admins, after reviewing their contribs, basically all of it is ECR violations. Is a warning sufficient here, or should we save our time and just block now? ] (]) 16:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
-->
*:I guess it will depend on whether they can show they understand their edits fall under our ECR. Their initial response here does not fill me with confidence. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:@]: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The battleground swipe at Selfstudier also doesn't do a lot to make me think that we won't be back here shortly. ] (]) 17:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I agree and was going to say the same. I think some form of sanction would be better in this situation. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* @], edit-warring ''to remove'' negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe ]whiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Is the solution of "tban broadly until they hit XC" going to work here? Or are we concerned that a ] is just going to not be followed here? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*:@], if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, ] was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a ] issue.
*:::::I'm thinking indef tban minimum. Getting to EC isn't going to fix battleground editing. Even a topic ban I think will end up at indef, bit at least we can try it. ] (]) 01:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*:But even if you ''had'' been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ''ever'' edit war over. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::An indef tban would give them a chance to learn the ropes and correct their behavior. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from ] seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I'm somewhat hesitant to indef TBAN someone with all of 33 edits, all of which are roughly in one particular topic area. It feel either overkill (as ] notes, {{tq|e must treat newcomers with kindness and patience... Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club}}) or not enough (should for example, the user simply be ]). But an indef TBAN here feels odd to me; the principle behind indef TBANs is that the user is productive except in one area, but we don't really have that here if all the edits are in one area. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to ] isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., ''that'' would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of {{tq|whitewash}} before writing this off as time-served. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*Noting Red-tailed hawk's comment above, but am not convinced this is a newcomer. Support an indef tban for wp:battleground conduct, reviewable if/when there's a constructive edit history elsewhere. -- ] (]) 21:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*::That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*:::Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make ]. The cited BBC source does not state {{tq| masturbated and ejaculated on camera}}, saying only {{tq|graphic sex act}}. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by ''New York Post'', a generally unreliable source. {{u|Luganchanka}}, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The detail is in the record of ''Ritter v. Tuttle'' (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Seeing ] here and ], ] at ], I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}}
*:::::::] calls upon users to {{tq|{{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person}}. There are some narrow exceptions (when {{tq|primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|may}} be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source}}), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal ''at best'' under our ].
*:::::::— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors}} regarding the lead? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}}
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences}} is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
*:That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got <s>]</s>two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
*:Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an offense of the same grade and degree}} as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is ''wise'' or ''optimal'' to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
*:Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
*:In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
*:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


==KlayCax== ==BabbleOnto==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning KlayCax=== ===Request concerning BabbleOnto===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Prcc27}} 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KlayCax}}<p>{{ds/log|KlayCax}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus. # Sealioning
# Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox. # Refusal to ]
# Added Cornell West to infobox without consensus. # Personalizing an argument.
# Railroading the discussion.
# Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.

# Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
# Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
# Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to the infobox.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->

# Block for edit-warring on ] article/arbitration decision enforced.
# Partial block for edit-warring.
# Blocked for edit-warring.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits ] for third-party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing (). They’ve continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved . The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the for state infoboxes. We shouldn’t have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there’s no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. ] (]) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:''Response @KlayCax:'' ] isn’t an RfC (you claimed it was). We came up with a consensus for state infoboxes at the main article’s talk page: 5%+ polling average and ballot access. Cornell West has ''never'' had a polling average of 5%+ in Michigan. The main issue regarding you adding West to the infobox is you added someone that isn’t even on the ballot in Michigan and is polling poorly. This has nothing to do with polling consistency; West has consistently polled below 5%. ] (]) 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:''Response @KlayCax:'' Wrong again. Your May 13th edit was made after was closed on May 12th. Nevertheless, it was clear even before that RfC that consensus was against inclusion. ] (]) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:''Response {{ping|Red-tailed hawk}}'' I believe David O. Johnson was the user that was initially planning on reporting KlayCax. But since that user appears to be busy, I offered to take over and make the report in their place. (Please see: ). ] (]) 03:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:''Comment:'' Regarding sanctions, I think KlayCax should either be topic banned, or given KlayCax’s disruptive actions are not isolated to only one topic, a ban that is more broad may be in order. ] (]) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:''Note to admins ({{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} {{ping| Red-tailed hawk}}):'' I just wanted to let you both know that I added yet another diff of {{ping|KlayCax}}’s disruptive behavior pushing third party candidates into the infoboxes. A few minutes ago, KlayCax added RFKJR. to the Texas infobox, even though RFKJR. has not appeared in ''any'' Harris v. Trump v. Kennedy state polls. Clearly Kennedy fails the polling criterion per consensus. KlayCax is still ignoring ], even after I already to them that ] has limits. ] (]) 10:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:''Response @Super Goku V:'' The context of my statement was to use the same criteria: polling and ballot access. Nationwide polling for the national infobox; statewide polling for state infoboxes. Never said qualifying for national infobox = qualifying for every single state infobox. ] (]) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:''Response @KlayCax:'' Why would we use polls that have the wrong Democratic nominee, especially when we know RFKJR does worse in polls with the correct nominee..? You may not have broken policy (this time) per se, but it is best to err on the side of caution on articles with discretionary sanctions. And I’m disappointed you decided to ignore my advice. ] (]) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:''Response @XavierGreen:'' Before a few days ago, it was quite clear RFKJR failed the RfC criteria. Kennedy possibly now meeting the criteria is irrelevant to KlayCax’s past disruptions. ] (]) 17:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning KlayCax=== ===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by KlayCax==== ====Statement by BabbleOnto====
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint . They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on and for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the .


To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
''Response to Prcc27's initial AE:''


I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've , I've that were clarified to be wrong, I've , at times and work together. And when those editors , I didn't provoke any further.
To summarize:


I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
* Prcc27 is wrong to claim that my opinions violate the principle of ] or that I'm pushing candidates into the infobox. On article after article, in the ] (I supported ], ], ], and other parties being added) I have consistently have been an advocate of broadly displaying the candidates within election articles within the infobox. Differences of opinions among editors is normal. Particularly when it involves controversial subject matter such as the ]. Talk page discussion in these instances is a good thing. A look at the edits in question shows it was a good faith attempt to reach consensus. Not an attempt to overturn the RFC.


1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
* Furthermore, I was not "attempting" to overturn an "already... resolved ". At no point did I ever even attempt to overturn the RFC. It should be clear by the context that I was polling editors on whether the requirements of the RFC has been made. (As the criteria laid out .) Because of this, ] to state that it appears that Kennedy Jr. has either met or was about to immediately meet the requirements of the RFC: being certified in a total amount of states that exceed 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. The goal of the discussion was to see whether there was now a consensus to add.


2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
* The March 6th and May 13th edits were ]. (Added later: The RFC concluded on the 12th. Ballot petitions were seen by many as counting.)


3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
* Both Jill Stein and Cornell West are/were polling above 5% and had either reported by ] or confirmed certified ballot access at the time the June 18th edit was made, it was a self-proclaimed ] edit, and it was on the ] article, not the ] article. Prcc27 favored a "three poll criteria + 5%" but there was nothing in the linked source to say that this was a consensus of editors. (Even under ]) He then removed it, it was not reverted, and I don't feel particularly strong either way or another about West or Stein being in the infobox.


4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
* The Lukt64 and Sendpls user edits had nothing to do with discussions on whether the RFC was resolved. Rather, they were just requests to add RFK into the article, so this was not simply "spamming the same thing three times" as argued.


All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that '''I'm''' not working with others. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Finally, many editors in mid-July stated that the issue needed to be revisited. The other aspects are clearly taken out of context and not rules violations. ] (]) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


*:Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
''Response to Prcc27's reply:''
*:Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. ] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) <small> Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. ] (]) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
**::{{TQ|an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.}}
**:: What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to ''personally agree'' with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.


***::: Re:{{tq|no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.}}
The RFC was ].
***::: Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.


====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
1.) I explained my reasoning at the time. Both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled at or above 5% in Michigan. There was never a consensus on whether 5% should be an ''average ''or ''individual ''polls (since RFK has been the only one to get both it's not been approached at all outside of our conversations) and the matter was left to editor's discretion.
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.


That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ''ad nauseam''. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
2.) At the time, '''local newspapers wrongly reported West's ballot access statement as a fact in their own voice''', as West had '' stated'' that he had been certified w/ ballot access at the time. (The newspapers in question were of course considered ] and I was working off of that.) In terms of Jill Stein, she has ballot access in Michigan as a member of the ].


====Statement by Newimpartial====
3.) Per ] it was not reinstated. ] (]) 21:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, .


1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|misquoted the article}}. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends . Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of ] with pure ].
''Response to third Prcc27:''


2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.}} This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and ].
Not true. On May 13th, "ballot access" was seen by many editors as having "had enough petitions" (as clearly visible), it was reverted, a talk page discussion ensured, and it was not reinstated by me per ]. ] (]) 23:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, {{tq|You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say}} and {{tq|You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said}} - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to {{tq|a basic failure in reading comprehension}} '''''two hours later'''''. This seems like a time travel paradox.
''Response to Muboshgu:''


4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I {{tq|said a material lie}}, and that I {{tq|lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying}} and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But ] again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
Muboshgu's claims that I was violating ] in the ] and ] articles. In response to this:


It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. ] (]) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I was not pushing any kind or sort of "left-wing" point of view in the J.D. Vance article — '''you seem to be arguing that I'm both violating ] by promoting a disproportionate left (on Vance article) AND right-wing perspective (on Kamala article), and with all due respect: that doesn't make sense '''— by noting that he has been influenced by the ] movement, a fact and description that he has also claimed and has been widely reported. It certainly ''does'' look like vandalism when it's not trimmed but removed from the article entirely. The entire notion that it is POV-pushing seems to be based on the claim that "his opinions on X or Y are unpopular so they shouldn't be in the article". That is of course not what ] means. ] is about reflecting the opinion of reliable sources. Not "doesn't improve or diminish their standing in the eyes of the median voter". Reliable sources have mentioned J.D. Vance's ties to the "dissent/edgy online right." It certainly does deserve mention on Misplaced Pages and reactionary thought is by no means too "obscure" a concept or too difficult to understand for readers.


====Statement by Objective3000====
At the time, there was already a Wikilinks for readers who want more detail. I reached out on talk - as you noted - and a majority wanted it kept.
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by JoelleJay====
Many American conservatives ''do'' use Marxism as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the ] and ]. His , is labeled a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it, nor {{tqi|"fail verification"}}. It's also typical to list the ideology of economists in the first sentence of the article. (See ] for instance.) Explanations for both edits were also given on their respective talk pages before the start of the ].
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like ] doesn't disrupt things even more? ] (]) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
You left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The difference of the edit showing that it was added in at the same time the diffs cited by him were. Are Marxists fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not. All of this, again, is just differing editorial perspectives that led to discussion. ] (]) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)


I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
''Response to SashiRolls:''


One need only cross-reference names from , checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
Edits in question.


I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
: The June 12, 2024 edit was in regards to ''political parties'' rather than coalitions. Listing ] or its constituent parties would have been ] at the time . The ''Deccan Herald'' source in question states: {{tqi|In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections}}.


] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: The was in reference to this article, which : {{tqi|In the often contentious and acrimonious debates over...}} (in regards to historians/political scientists over the matter.) What was being cited there wasn't the author's opinion on the matter. What was being referred was his meta-analysis of the the state of the literature as of 2023.
: The ] edit is sourced to an online survey. That is true. However, in recent years due to low-response rates/other factors, with the differences between online/telephone survey accuracy sharply decreasing. Partisan polling is fine as long as it comes from a ]. (See ] for ]) I also later replaced it with this higher-quality source .


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
Sourcing in question.
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...}}" despite them being in a ] situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
: The ] sourced ''The Spectator'' (]), a ], and followed the guidelines for a ] right-wing view, attributing the view exclusively to Jeff Fynn-Paul.
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
: The edit doesn't make the claim. It states that the claim has been widely believed among sociologists. Those are two different claims with two very different meanings.


===Statement by berchanhimez===
''Final concluding notes:''
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Statement by Shibbolethink ====
'''I'm requesting that the closing admin go through every edit cited before coming to a AE decision.''' I'm happy to explain any edit that is seem as problematic if need be through private (email) or public response (here).
I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they ''could'' be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely ''could'' follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly ]) in that topic space (e.g. )


We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, '''I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN''', where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (]). Just my 2 cents.—&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not believe that there was a violation of Misplaced Pages rules within the differences cited. Many of the individuals commenting have made personal attacks, false ] accusations, and similar things against me over the past year, but per ]/] guidelines I've been hesitant about mentioning this until now, as not sure what I can write on this outside of vague references.


====Statement by (username)====
I've reached the max word limit (~at 1500 albeit going slightly over) to respond to every claim but it should be clear by the above that the claims are baseless and throwing the kitchen sink. ] (]) 09:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
'''Final concluding notes: Part II'''

Expected the above to be my final message but , {{ping|Red-tailed sock}}.

Prcc27 unilaterally changed the infobox box inclusion criteria and then ''retroactively'' punished me for the supposed "violation". If you notice: the ] was ''one'' poll with 5% ballot access.

He then wanted to modify it so it was a "consistent polling criteria" of 3 polls above 5% with a 5%+ average. I found that permissible and even logical. (Despite it not being the original agreed upon criteria.)

Now, he reports me retroactively for violating a "criteria" that was not specified or outlined or notified, saying that ''only'' those with Harris as a candidate are valid, saying {{tqi|No Harris/Trump/Kennedy polling in Texas; fails polling criterion}}. That is absolutely astonishing as this "change in criteria" was not notified to neither me or the editors on the ] talk page and appears to be entirely retroactively applied decision. (At the very least: I was never notified of it.) I'm definitely not going to touch this topic now as I have absolutely ''no'' interest on editing the ]-related articles anymore. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I simply don't have the time or effort to respond to frivolous claims, evershifting goal posts, and intentionally boobytrapped edits.

Willing to respond to any seemingly problematic edits if a closer has a question. For now: I feel like I explained all of the cited edits and I'm completely burnt out of this conversation. ] (]) 07:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Qutlook====

<s>:It may also be noted that KlayCax has been warned in the past on other articles for deceptive editing and has been given a “Final Warning” by ScottishFinnishRadish. Just FYI and my two cents for the time being. ] (]) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)</s>

:This has already been stated in the head, please disregard. ] (]) 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::(Response to Left guide's first statement) Yes, I did do that complaint. HOWEVER, I did not have the diffs of which people were talking about. So I did not open a case. ] (]) 14:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:::(Response to Super Goku V’s second statement) Maybe it would be best to clarify that I was told ''if'' I wanted disciplinary action against KlayCax I would need to open an AE. Though, as stated, I did not have the diffs that would be needed to properly open an AE request. ] (]) 03:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::No, I mean has everyone said what they have wanted to say. ] (]) 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:(Response to KlayCax's bulletpoint No. 5) An outlier poll does not, and WOULD NOT argue enough for an inclusion into the infobox, nor does a party "claiming" to have ballot access mean anything until it is fact-checked and proven by factual sources. ] (]) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:(Response to Prcc27’s comment) May it be considered that an indefinite block be done considering you have said that it is not only one topic they interact with. ] (]) 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:(Response to KlayCax) The max word limit you were told to be under was 1000 words. Not 1500. ] (]) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:I have reckon everyone here has made up their minds on KlayCax have we? ] (]) 02:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

==== Statement by David A ====

:I personally think that this editor seems well-intended and mostly harmless, so I hope that his punishment (if any) will not be unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps he can simply be ordered by a Misplaced Pages administrator to stop attempting to add West, Kennedy, and other minor candidates to the infobox? ] (]) 09:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

==== Statement by Left guide ====
:It's worth noting that less than a week ago, at an admin's talk page by a user different from the filer of this request. ] (]) 09:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::I ran KlayCax's section into the word count tool and the result was '''1241 words''', more than double the 500 limit. ] (]) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Muboshgu====
KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including ], edit warring over some obscure political views. See ] for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of when a user removed information that should have been removed, and . They also tried to add to ] and ] that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation. See ] for more of that discussion. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
: who was editing against the consensus of that RfC. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by GreatCaesarsGhost====
:<s>I agree with David A that KlayCax is mostly harmless but deserves some sanction</s>. My concern is they are not adhering to ]. KlayCax is being too bold in making major edits that they know will be subject to revert or controversy. As I noted here they will sometimes act against established consensus due to evolving events that they deem have negated that consensus (when most others disagree). I do wish that they would acknowledge and reflect that criticism of their edits is coming from many editors. ''<small>]</small>'' 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::Striking my prior advocacy for leniency. I have limited engagement with KC, and am thus not in a position to comment on their overall behavior. ''<small>]</small>'' 12:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Super Goku V====
There seems to be some confusion about the RfC that was mentioned due to how it was linked to, so to clear that up it is my understanding that the referenced RfC is ] --] (]) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:To add, the below mentioned archived talk page discussion is relevant to this as it involved discussion on the 22nd and 23rd about KlayCax's talk page edits. There were comments that the appropriate venue was either ANI or AE. --] (]) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

''Response to Left guide:'' Yes, that seems to be from ] Qutlook said at the time, {{tpq|q=y|After speaking to an admin who has warned KlayCax before for disruptive editing I have been told to do this... One Problem, I don't have those diffs so I don't ''currently'' have an open AE request.}} Not sure why he said he was told to do so, but it is related in my opinion. --] (]) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

''Response to Qutlook:'' Gotcha. I will note above that the archived talk page discussion is still relevant to this discussion. --] (]) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to your earlier indefinite block comment, then I don't agree on that. --] (]) 03:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Gotcha. For myself, I think that it should be noted that there was a single false ] accusation, not multiple. Other than that, I think that either ScottishFinnishRadish's or Prcc27's suggested remedies would work. --] (]) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

''Response to KlayCax:'' <s>Just to check, do you understand the word limits as noted at the top of this page? {{tpq|q=y|'''Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed ''500 words and 20 diffs''''', except by permission of a reviewing administrator.}} My understanding is that you get 500 words total for your statements, not 500 words per statement.</s> --] (]) 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:Striking given the extension request. --] (]) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

''Response to Prcc27:'' I understand the criteria at ] having Kennedy listed in the infobox, but I guess not for the other states. ] If so, can you clarify what you meant by {{tpq|but I think it seems more practical to just follow the lead of the national infobox criteria}} then? From my reading, it seems to support adding Kennedy to the other articles. --] (]) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

==== Statement by SashiRolls ====

I agree that the problem is not related to the topic area. I'm not sure I would agree that KlayCax is entirely harmless after having had to spend a lot of time cleaning up after them.

KCx is known for edit summaries which hide the nature of their edits:
*] -- While the edit summary is {{maroon|WP:MOS}}, ''in fact'' it introduces POV content not supported by the source supplied. Questioned about this, KCx later provided a link to the ''Deccan Herald'' on the TP, which also did not support the sweeping statement, though he wisely refrained from adding it to the entry after two people pointed out the claim he wanted to add ''to the first line of the lede'' was nonsense.
*] -- {{ping|Drmies}} writes, "{{tq|your edit summary makes no sense in relation to the actual edit, and your response is to repeat the same irrelevant citation, this time with a quote which ''also'' totally doesn't make your point.}}" and four days later adds "{{tq|It's just one deflection after another}}" further suggesting bringing the problem up at ANI for disussion of a topic ban. ]

KCx also seems to have trouble identifying reliable sources, beyond the ''Deccan Herald'' example cited above.

*]: Adds back an opinion piece from ''The Spectator'' {{small|(Cf. its entry at ])}} as the second link in the lede of an entry, after it had been removed.
*] adds the results of an '''online survey''' conducted on behalf of Skylight, "an initiative of the Radiance foundation". The source states: "Skylight’s mission is to use technology to help young people embrace God-centered spiritual habits.
*] adds the same online survey to another top-level page, buried in an avalanche of text.
*]: inserts the claim that <s>the</s> religion in the US is {{tq|the final "death nail" of the secularization hypothesis}} based on an article that argues that this claim is empirically false (without using the term "death nail" of course). When questioned on it, he says that it's a poor source (not for the claim, but in general).

Finally, KCx has a habit of creating RfC & RM that are snow-closed against the position they were promoting: {{small|Cf. ] and ]}} and insists on long discussions about RfCs past they disagree with (see the context of the 26 February 2024 diff above).

I grant some of these diffs are a bit dated, but a pattern is clearly visible over the past year...-- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:12 June: The source KCx added didn't support their claim that the RN was one of two major political parties in France in any way. The ''Deccan Herald'' article found later is talking about one election. {{small|For context, the RN has out of 348 senators (<1%).}}
:21 April: the second line of the lede says "Remini... states" something. KCx's "marginally reliable" source does not mention Remini even once. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|% of KCx's edits to mainspace reverted}}: -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

==== Statement by XavierGreen ====
The RFC stated that any candidate who "generally has 5% in poll aggregators" and ballot access to 270 electoral college votes should be included. Myself and other editors have shown proof that he has met the RFC consensus. There are a number of editors who are vociferously commenting on the talk page making arguments that are directly contrary to the RFC.] (]) 21:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:I would like to note to the admins reviewing this that those stating that KlayCax was editing against consensus should note that a massive dispute has now erupted in on the 2024 United States presidential election talk page and edit warring against the same RFC consensus that KlayCax was accused here of editing against.] (]) 17:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

==== Statement by Dan Murphy ====
I don't think the xaviergreen account should be making contributions in the uninvolved administrators area.] (]) 01:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

===Result concerning KlayCax===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*Please keep the word limits in mind and only comment in your own sections. ] (]) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
-->
*:Well, I'm not terribly impressed with the response to frequent warnings and blocks for edit warring being badgering and bludgeoning. This seems to be their general behavior whenever there is disagreement rather than isolated to one article or topic. ] (]) 13:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|KlayCax}}, I suggest you condense down what you have already. I can tell you I don't find {{tq|Marxian/Marxist economists see capitalism as being inherently tied to class conflict (albeit this can be repressed in their views through false consciousness) and subsequent exploitation. Many American conservatives do use it as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. It is an uncontroversial and demonstrable fact that Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, he's been described as a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it in the article. It certainly does not "fail verification" and I can provide over a dozen sources on the matter. Furthermore, you left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The diff of the edit can be seen here. Are you under the assumption that Marxists are fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not.}}{{sup|{{small|194 words, or 2/5 of the word limit}}}} particularly useful. ] (]) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at ] exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes ]. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of ]. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:No other admins have any input? ] (]) 15:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|Valereee}} in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*Two things:
* I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. {{u|BabbleOnto}}, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
*#{{yo|Prcc27}} Can you explain why this was filed one week after the most recent edit that you've placed in the diff list?
*#{{yo|KlayCax}} If you would like an extension, please request one at ]. But otherwise, please condense down the comment a bit.
:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::They ] on my talk page, and I told them to try and keep it under 1000 words. ] (]) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I had missed that. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|KlayCax}} You're still over the word limit extension by ~500 words. Please condense it, or hat intricate details. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Red-tailed hawk}}, have you had a chance to look this over yet? With their history of edit warring, and moving on to this IDHT/bludgeoning I'm thinking six month topic ban from the 2024 American presidential election might be the ticket. ] (]) 11:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I have taken my chance to fully read through all the diffs yet, no. I don't think I will in the next 24 hours, either, so please do not wait on me if you have already found some narrowly tailored approach here that you believe will work. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 13:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm still up in the air between a narrow topic ban here, or something broader. Considering the issues with edit warring that have led to multiple blocks and a final warning before an indef leading in to this recent behavior I'm not certain that a tightly tailored topic ban is sufficient. ] (]) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*I'm very concerned that the ] attitude seems to have carried over from previous cases where sanctions were levied. I feel an AP2 TBAN is needed, and - given that they seem to be raising issues of candidates in infoboxes that nobody else cares about on other pages as well - possibly an infobox TBAN as well, but at the moment I'm not able to find evidence that they are aware of the infobox DS/CT regime. ] (]) 00:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't see an infobox notice, so AP2 topic ban and a logged warning on infobox editing? ] (]) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)


:Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
== SashiRolls appeal of AE Topic ban given in Sagecandor v. Tlroche ==
{{hat|SashiRolls topic ban against participating in AE discussions is rescinded. <s>Per a rough consensus of uninvolved administrators, if there is any disruption at AE in the next 12 months any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban without further consensus.</s> Procedural note: there was also consensus, including from the closing administrator, that the AE restriction listed as part of their unblock restrictions was not a separate community restriction and so no further community appeal was needed. ] (]) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)}}
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|SashiRolls}} –


:<small>As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors.</small> ] (]) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : AE Topic ban, imposed at
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}}
::@], hm, yes, and ] also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @]? ] (]) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 ], though this specific ''article'' is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, ''truly'' a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still ''super'' restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be ] by enforcing ECR.
:::::Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
:::::“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “] violation, user not ]; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
:::::] is ]y. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
:::::#Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
:::::#Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
:::::#Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
:::::The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
:::::When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR ''here''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? ] (]) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? ] (]) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Timotheus Canens}}
*:BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
*:@], I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? ] (]) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], re:{{xt|It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it,}} no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. ] (]) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think {{u|BabbleOnto}} is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to ''agree'' with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and ]. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove ''and'' frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing ''during this case''...I dunno. ] (]) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.
*:::@], do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as ], and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? ] (]) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


==Marlarkey==
; Notification of that administrator : ]
{{hat|Marlarkey p-blocked from ] and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}


I was (16 December 2016) as a result of making a comment warning about a sockpuppet of {{noping|Cirt}} ({{noping|Sagecandor}}), who was at the time massively weaponizing AE in order to take out political opponents (among other things).

In retrospect, I would be surprised if anyone were to maintain that this was not a case of shooting the messenger. Since that time, some people have expressed their distaste for Wikipediocracy. Perhaps if en.wp's behavioural "courts" were less likely to sanction whistleblowers, there would be less reason for folks to show diffs of misbehaviour off-wiki rather than trusting internal processes.

Today, with significant evidence to present in an active AE case, I find myself still gagged by this decision protecting former administrator Cirt's Sagecandor sockpuppet.

Though I did request on that the admin remove the sanction, they declined to do so and, as such, I have scrupulously respected that AE ban by not participating in any cases to which I was not a named party. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 13:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:The AE ban having been imposed at AE and having only been mentioned as a pre-existing topic ban, it can obviously be removed at AE, otherwise it would be double jeopardy for having spoken up about a rogue admin sockpuppeting weaponizing AE in 2016. There was absolutely no discussion of the TBAN in question at AN, therefore the "community" is not responsible for it in any way. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 21:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::After 7.5 years served, this "parole" does not seem to be asking me to never again be found {{tq|'''"injecting"''' <s>unrelated matters</s> <u>evidence of a user's misbehaviour</u> into an AE thread about <s>someone else's</s> <u>that user's</u> conduct }}. Is that correct? If that is correct, that's fine. If not, please explain further. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:::As with the dubious (EE) TBAN imposed in the AN close and then subsequently removed by the community, there won't be any problems from me. ''That'' I can promise. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by KoA===
Posting here as an involved editor since I had to deal with a lot of the battleground issues Sashirolls caused at AE and in the GMO topic.

1. ] and ], seeing your conversation mentioning Sashirolls wanting to comment in the KlayCax thread above, wouldn't that be in violation of their anyways since that dispute seems to be entirely centered on the US election?

2. What really caught my eye here though is Sashirolls' ] attitude about their sanction and related behavior. It's dismissive and avoids mentioning what else happened:
:*, they were also blocked (6 months) for disruptive editing and wikihounding, which was closely tied to their AE actions/battleground behavior.
:*. After the block expires, they only go a few days until they are blocked for 1 year for continuing similar hounding issues.
:*. Sanctioned again for continued personal comments/battleground pursuit.
:The point here is that a series of related sanctions occurred closely tied to Sashirolls' pursuit of editors in AE and other venues. The way Sashirolls leaves that context out and dismisses the initial sanction is concerning. Sashirolls even links to where the sanctioning admin was clear {{tq|You were sanctioned for the manner in which you expressed these concerns. . .}} and {{tq|This sanction was imposed for injecting unrelated matters into an AE thread about someone else's conduct. . .}}. Similar comments came up when Sashirolls then that was unanimously rejected, I'd suggest admins review those discussions for more context since this is feeling like a repeat of those.
:The NOTTHEM issue came up in their and Like that ban appeal, they don't seem to show an understanding of why they were restricted from AE and instead show dismissal of the pursuit of editors problem claiming it was "shooting the messenger" instead. That's usually a sign the sanction is still needed to some degree, especially since they've had trouble not pursuing editors in the past (not getting into their full block/sanction list here). If that sanction had been a more isolated case given its age and the appeal wasn't so dismissive of the behavior that persisted after the initial sanction, then there would be more weight towards the sanction being unneeded. Instead, I'd have to echo what Volunteer Marek during an appeal; why would they want to comment at AE? That's especially given the guidance they were given after their site unban to stay away from CT topics. ] (]) 00:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Result concerning SashiRolls appeal of AE Topic ban given in Sagecandor v. Tlroche===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I'm probably open to repealing the topic ban completely, but will note that when filing a request someone is inherently a party so I do not think this tban would stop you from filing a request Sashi. ] (]) 16:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:It looks like SashiRolls . ] (]) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{re|SashiRolls}} my suggestion is more "probation" than "parole" (words I both intentionally avoided when writing my thought). If there are no problems in 12 months, it all goes away. If there is disruption, the topic ban could be imposed. I would hope/expect that it would all go away, otherwise I wouldn't be supporting it. ] (]) 22:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*This topic ban was later , so even if we lift the first one you'd still have to go back to AN for the second one. I'm not exactly thrilled with this appeal on the merits, but it might make the paperwork easier to just lift this topic ban and let the community sort it out from there. ] (]) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:The community has the ability to undo the topic ban as well. So given this it seems like the community should just handle it all? ] (]) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*::That would work too. ] (]) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sashi seems to prefer that AE undo the AE ban which is {{their|SashiRolls}} right. Given your correction to me of what Sashi wants to do, I'm in favor of "on the merits" ({{tqq|the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed}}) repeal and as such the tone of the appeal is less bothersome to me. ] (]) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ping to {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} about the community restriction. Was there consensus for the community to double up the AE topic ban or were you just summarizing all the restrictions in one place and so if AE repeals the topic ban, SashiRolls won't also need community approval? ] (]) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I see those as the conditions the community required for the unban. I don't know paperwork-wise if that means that the community assumed the topic ban or created their own. As I don't recall any specific discussion on that topic ban I'd say it's fair to call it just the AE tban. ] (]) 22:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose I can support (no probation needed); this was an unusual sanction that didn't really fit the problem it was supposed to address, as became clear . But I don't at all agree with SashiRolls' portrayal of the original sanction as "shooting the messenger", "sanction whistleblowers" "protecting" sockpuppets, etc., and I agree with KoA that this persistent NOTTHEM attitude doesn't augur well for the future. Hopefully we're wrong. ] (]) 06:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
*I'd be OK to remove this AE TBAN, particularly given the context of what has happened thereafter. I do find the title a bit odd; we normally don't title AE complaints as X v. Y (though this might be some legacy thing?), but the title isn't relevant to the substance of the appeal. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 00:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*Same. I also am in favour of repealing on the merits. To clarify, there are three ways to appeal: the community at ], a quorum of uninvolved admins here at ], or to ArbCom at ]. Either of the former two would be fine for this appeal (the latter probably less so), so like others here, I see no issue with having AE as the venue. ] 01:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*Given KoA's feedback and the general consensus here, what are thoughts from other uninvolved admin of removing the TBAN but allowing an uninvolved administrator to reinstate it, if necessary, in the next 12 months. This is possible with a rough consensus here but isn't something normally open to individual admin (though I do think individual admin could cutoff further participation from Sashi in a given AE discussion where there's been discussion). ] (]) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:*I think that's a good idea and compromise. ] 19:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think a sort of probation here is warranted. The user was unblocked with , and one has been so far without any behavioral issues reported. I'm not seeing any evidence of malfeasance by SashiRolls post-2020 presented here, and the current trajectory of the user does not indicate that a parole restriction is necessary. Of course, if I am wrongo and the user does wind up showing persistent behavioral issues here after the topic ban is lifed outright, we can ''still'' partially block the user from this page as an ordinary admin action. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 04:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
* It seems like discussion has moved past this, but just to confirm: I don't think it's sensible to construe the unblock as requiring community review of the AE TBAN, and I think this is the proper venue for an appeal. I support removing the TBAN; time served + the revelation of sockpuppetry is enough for me. I'd be fine granting the appeal with or without B49's 12-month parole proposal. Either way, I echo the unblock discussion's suggestion that SR avoid contentious topics and this discussion's suggestion that disruption on this page is very likely to lead to a restored TBAN. ] (] / ]) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Oleg Yunakov==
{{hat|No action. ] (]) 14:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Oleg Yunakov=== ===Request concerning Marlarkey===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|RAN1}} 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Oleg Yunakov}}<p>{{ds/log|Oleg Yunakov}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#]: Graphic war image and copyright violation (]) removed from article by third-party.
#NSFW: ]: Oleg Yunakov reinserts the image.
#] and ]: I remove the image as copyvio.
#] under complaints about the image being too graphic.
#:<ins>]: Oleg Yunakov knew the image was uploaded to Commons the day before the first revert after comparing the time with other sources. ] (]) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)</ins>
#NSFW: ]: Oleg Yunakov reinserts the image again, violating 1RR.
#<ins>]: Oleg Yunakov knew the image was published in Misplaced Pages the day before the first revert. ] (]) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)</ins>


''''''
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on ].
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

''''''
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''"
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a ]-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. '''The ]''' (] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The image is clearly an upload from social media: Different crops were posted <del>on e.g. </del> <ins>on that show bystanders at the top (added 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC))</ins> which could not be derivatives of the image uploaded to Commons. Since this is a copyright violation, I removed it as exempt from 1RR. Oleg Yunakov disputed it, and after deciding my exemption reason was invalid, proceeded to revert and violate 1RR.
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I should mention that before I found out that Oleg Yunakov participated at AE, I reported this to ANEW. I ] that report before requesting here. ] (]) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.
::After Oleg Yunakov reverted to bring back the copyvio, I couldn't find a CT alert and the process diff I linked above didn't turn up in search because it was self-reverted. I did find a 1RR warning from a month ago (see ]), but I didn't think that counted for awareness, so I ended up sending a CT alert and reporting to ANEW. Then I found the process diff. That's my bad, but reverting to bring back an NSFW suspected copyvio image, after being warned, is abusive at best. ] (]) 01:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@]: No, I did not warn 1RR or ask for a self-revert because of the previous discussion ]. ] (]) 15:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


*{{ping|Rosguill}} After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. '''The ]''' (] 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@]: My understanding was your notifications sent you about ], which was obviously not the bottom of the page, so I found it hard to believe you didn't know there was a previous dispute. That convinced me that you knew you had reverted somebody else when you reverted me. I don't know what else you could have understood from being pinged to the first section. ] (]) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:@]: I just found out you're a prolific uploader to Commons (]), you are well aware that only the creator of a photo can license it, and of the differences between creator-uploaded photos and plagiarized ones. I'm incredulous you think that image isn't a copyvio. As for the talk page, the fact that you replied to the bottom of the first section is not an assumption. ] (]) 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
I've amended my complaint to include diffs where Oleg Yunakov discusses when the image was uploaded and published. They show that Oleg Yunakov knew the image had been published in Misplaced Pages before the first revert around the time of the second. ] (]) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)


@]: The underlying issue here isn't being addressed; Oleg Yunakov edit warred over an obvious copyvio image because the non-derivatives we found were published after the Commons upload. In any case, that turns the 1RR exemption on its head, and considering I brought up 1RR at ], I request you explain why this should be closed with no action. ] (]) 16:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Oleg Yunakov=== ===Discussion concerning Marlarkey===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Oleg Yunakov==== ====Statement by Marlarkey====
The info was provided . <small>Those continuous actions start to look like a harassment (, , , )</small>. With regards, ] (]) 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Till now still there is no confirmation of copyright issues or at least copies found which were published before the time when an image was uploaded to Commons as can be seen . If someone thinks otherwise please provide reasoning why. With regards, ] (]) 18:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Also I did only one addition and just one revert after no valid argument were given on the copyright violation. Did no do any reverts after it. With regards, ] (]) 18:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)<br/>
]: You understanding is incorrect. My main wiki is ruwiki and here I spend a very little time. I didn't check prior history of edits and only read what you wrote to me and any subsequential discussion. You could mention that there were prior reverts and not to assume things like your assumption that the image is copyvio when no one was able to provide any earlier posts of the image till now. If you do no assume that others are like this as well. I usually speak and listen to the arguments and would revert if I see that any rule is violated. If that wouldn't be the case I'd not be a ruwiki sysop for many years and arbcom member and many other things. Communication is a great tool. But this was a good learning experience and now I know how to file arbcom requests here. With regards, ] (]) 11:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)


{{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.
====Statement by BilledMammal====
First, the exemption only applies to "clear copyright violations". This is not a clear violation, being based solely on RAN1's suspicions, so it doesn’t apply here - RAN1 should not have violated 1RR, and should have self-reverted when asked.


My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another."
Second, RAN1 did not follow the gentleman’s agreement by asking Oleg to self-revert before coming here.
1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article
2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article
3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.


In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.
I think a boomerang is appropriate. ] (]) 23:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:SFR, I don’t think "good faith copyvio concerns" Is sufficient to meet the standard of ], as good faith concerns can exist without the copyvio being clear.
:Further, the image js still on commons over a week later - at this point, I think it is time for RAN1 to self-revert. ] (]) 17:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
===Result concerning Oleg Yunakov===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*In my view, the copyright concern was reasonable enough that it meets the threshold for 3RRNO, or at least that I wouldn't take immediate action for the 1RR violation. {{u|RAN1}}, did you inform them of the 1RR violation and ask them to self-revert? ] (]) 13:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*:If there is no other admin input in the next day I'll be closing this as no action. ] (]) 11:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|RAN1}}, I'm assuming good faith that what they said here was true, {{tq|I didn't check prior history of edits and only read what you wrote to me and any subsequential discussion}}. They didn't think they had violated 1RR, you didn't ask them to self revert while explaining the situation, and you had good-faith copyvio concerns. The whole thing is a wash. ] (]) 17:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*I am okay with ScottishFinnishRadish's proposed closure. ] (]) 14:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==GreekParadise==
{{hat|GreekParadise partial blocked for one week by ScottishFinnishRadish. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page."
===Request concerning GreekParadise===
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Supreme Deliciousness}} 20:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|GreekParadise}}<p>{{ds/log|GreekParadise}}</p>


'''I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page.''' GRRRRRRrrr
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->


On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter...
# Ads US recognition in lead of article.
"If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.
# Ads US recognition in lead of article.
# Ads US recognition in lead of article.
# Ads US recognition in lead of article.
# Ads US recognition in lead of article.


Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Was notified before:
*:I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.

*:But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::<small>(Moved from WeatherWriter's section</small> I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
::::So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. ] (]) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
===Result concerning Marlarkey===

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning GreekParadise===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by GreekParadise====

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning GreekParadise===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*Blocked for a week from ]. ] (]) 20:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
-->
{{hab}}
{{u|Marlarkey}}, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Weather Event Writer}}, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


==Astropulse==
{{hat|{{user|Astropulse}} blocked for one week from ] for violating 1RR. ] (]) 11:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
===Request concerning Astropulse===
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|BilledMammal}} 02:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages

:*It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states ] and ] do not appear to have been challenged at any point.

:*Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is {{tq|objectively accurate}}. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Astropulse}}<p>{{ds/log|Astropulse}}</p>
:*In light of discussion at ], which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring

:*Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from ] (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
*As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him&mdash;we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

*I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that ]; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. ] (]) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
* Pretty much everything Rosquill said. {{u|Marlarkey}}, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in ]s. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Violated ] at ] with {{diff2|1237978675|13:16, 1 August 2024}} which reinstated several earlier reverts, with the justification {{tq|reverting because of violation of WP:3RR and 1 edit revert max 24hrs}}. The most self-evident of these reverts is {{diff2|1237929194|06:19, 1 August 2024}}, which reverted {{diff2|1237857604|20:46, 31 July 2024}}.
*:FWIW, the CTOP warning was ]. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.

*:You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive ''no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions'', leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. ] (]) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
They have ] or discuss further, saying that consensus is required to restore the previous content. My assessment of the ] is that consensus is against their edit.
{{hatb}}

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|1232500203|4 July 2024}}

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:Astropulse has now, rather than self-reverting, {{diff2|1238286464|expanded one of the sections their revert affected}}, making it harder for them to self-revert. ] (]) 03:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::Astropulse, this wasn’t your only revert, just the most self-evident. ] (]) 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{diff2|1238277646|02:14, 3 August 2024}}

===Discussion concerning Astropulse===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by Astropulse====
:I have explained my reasoning on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Astropulse
:There is already discussion about this here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hamas#Neutrality
:BilledMammal is not involved in any of these discussion. People are okay with the current version. We are debating on how to include details about oct 7 attacks without violating NPOV
:Edits in question is an attempt to fix NPOV issues flagged by other editors.
some consensus reached here : quoting replies from article talk page
:I don't think the article currently needs an NPOV tag, and I would support its removal. Hemiauchenia (talk)
:After the latest edits I agree, although I still think the original edit that emphasised the war crimes and stated the background to the ongoing war was a better article Stratojet94 (talk)
: +1 FortunateSons (talk)
] (]) 02:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:What do you want me to revert to? You want me to revert to a version that violated ] ? please read the hammas talk page. latest replies by Hemiauchenia, Stratojet94 and FortunateSons. Good progress has been made to resolve the differences. People agree, current version is better and we are close to remove the ] tag. We are still ironing out few last pieces. ] (]) 02:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*::quoting replies from article hammas talk page
*::''I don't think the article currently needs an NPOV tag, and I would support its removal. Hemiauchenia (talk)''
*::''After the latest edits I agree, although I still think the original edit that emphasised the war crimes ''and stated the background to the ongoing war was a better article Stratojet94 (talk)''
*::+1 FortunateSons (talk) '' ] (]) 02:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] people has made further edits to fix issues in my edit. BilledMammal is not the involved editor. Im tagging @] whose edit i reverted. I think we resolved most of the differences. Please confirm. BilledMammal is claiming i need to revert this ] ] (]) 02:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::@]we have some consensus from some other people about current version. reverting all changes will take more time to resolve the NPOV. We should work to resolve issue by making further edits not reverting to old version. ] (]) 03:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Please see ] and ] ] (]) 03:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@ ] Please see ] and ] - i think this discussion should be closed as per ] and make further edits to make improvements. ] (]) 03:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I still maintain i only did one revert ]. this edit ] is minor - even though appear to be a revert - it is an edit because this tag is no longer needed as no more edits were made on that topic ] (]) 03:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Also i want to confirm the edit i reverted ] is as per wiki policies.
*:::::::It says in ] that "''A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert''." But here there were intervening edits made by other user ] Is this revert ] by Hemiauchenia still count as one revert? ] (]) 04:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::@]
*::::::::I acknowledge that my edit technically constituted a 1RR violation, and I apologize for any confusion it caused. My primary intention was to address the NPOV concerns raised by multiple editors on the talk page. My edits were aimed at improving the article and aligning it with Misplaced Pages’s neutrality standards.
*::::::::As noted in the talk page discussions, there is a developing consensus that the current version, which includes my edits and subsequent adjustments by other editors, is an improvement over the previous version.
*::::::::Given this context, I propose that we continue to refine the article collaboratively rather than reverting to an earlier version that still had unresolved neutrality issues.
*::::::::I understand the importance of adhering to the 1RR rule, I will take more time to read it fully. But i think we should balance it with other policies. Also i have not involved in edit warring with BilledMammal. If there is a problem - i think it is with Hemiauchenia - who has not made this Enforcement request.
*::::::::I have no further comments on this matter. Do what you feel is right. ] (]) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Hemiauchenia====
I am confused. The accused made some edits to the Hamas page, I did a reversion back to a previous version before these edits were made (as I was entitled to do under the 1RR). The accused then reverted my reversion under mistaken logic that I was violating the 1RR. As far as I am aware, they did not make a revert on the page prior to that during the previous 24 hour period, so I assumed that they were entitled to make that revert under the 1RR even if their logic was wrong. ] (]) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
: Okay I get it, they did make a technical (not clearly demarked) revert several hours prior, though the actual content change was pretty minor. I agree that they did violate the 1RR. One issue is that the changes to the lead will have to be reverted manually (I am okay with my edits being undone as part of this, as they were partially restoring the previous version anyway). ] (]) 03:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
Regarding Astropulse's "consensus reached here : quoting replies from article talk page", since Stratojet94 is not extendedconfirmed and should not be participating in that discussion, their views have no bearing on assessments of consensus. That statement should probably be struck out. ] (]) 03:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by FortunateSons====

There is also this {{diff2|1238302549|gem}}. It’s not catastrophic or anything, but I think it’s clearly over the line, particularly within a Contentious Topic. ] (]) 08:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Astropulse===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*{{u|Astropulse}}, nothing in your explanation meets the exceptions in ]. Please self revert. ] (]) 02:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:If other editors believe that version is correct then they can restore it, provided they have not made a revert. ] (]) 02:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Astropulse}}, yes, that revert by Hemiauchenia was a single edit and therefore a single revert. Also the essays you cite are not included in ], out edit warring policy. Your lack of understanding of the policy coupled with doubling down with your editing while this discussion is ongoing doesn't inspire much confidence that this won't recur. ] (]) 11:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*::So that's a no on the self-revert? ] (]) 18:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==O.maximov== ==DanielVizago==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning O.maximov=== ===Request concerning DanielVizago===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|O.maximov}}<p>{{ds/log|O.maximov}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p>




;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# Added ] to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}});
On Aug 3, O.maximov reinstated one of {{u|ABHammad}}'s edits. (ABHammad received a 0RR restriction at Jul 31 20:52, see ].)
# and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
*] at ]
# Changing content in ] to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary {{tq|rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources}});
**O.maximov changed {{tqq|were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled}} to {{tqq|were expelled or fled due to various causes}} with the edit summary {{tqq|last consensual version of this before weight changes}}
# Added "bimisandry" to ], citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
**However, this is not the "last consensual version." In this edit, O.maximov reinstated an edit by ] that introduced the {{tqq|various causes}} language, changing {{tqq|were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and later its military, an expulsion known as the Nakba}} to {{tqq|were expelled or made to flee due to various causes}}. This edit was changed by {{u|Nableezy}} on ] to {{tqq|were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled from the territory Israel would come to control.}}
# 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding ] with piped names to unrelated articles, then those names directly to the category page;
** There has been discussion about this line since May at ], and a pending RFC at ]
# restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
** The "due to various causes" language is whitewashing via ] words, an example of ]. "Various causes" is a ] for debunked theories like "they left voluntarily" or "their leaders told them to leave," intended to distract from the ''actual'' cause, which is violence by the ].
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}}
Other similar issues:
* ] at ]
** Changes {{tqq|Israel has established and continues to expand ]...}} to {{tqq|Israel has established ]}}, removing {{tqq|and continues to expand}}, with edit summary {{tqq|This can be trimmed without changing the meaning}}
** Of course, it significantly changes the meaning, again whitewashing that settlement expansion continues to this day (e.g. : "Israel turbocharges West Bank settlement expansion with largest land grab in decades")
* ] (combined diff) at ]
** ], edit summary {{tqq|More on media}}
*** removed that Israel is {{tqq|behind Qatar}}
*** added positive content about Israel ({{tqq|Israeli media is diverse, reflecting the spectrum of Israeli audiences.}})
*** added that Al Jazeera is Qatari
** ], edit summary {{tqq|One time event, wp:bold}}
*** removed negative content about Israel seizing journalists' equipment
** ], edit summary {{tqq|reasoning}}
*** added that Israeli officials accuse Qatari Al Jazeera of promoting antisemitism and terrorism
* Tag-team edit warring at ]: ], ], ] - note these are such "blind reverts," that they even change "https" to "http", a sure sign that people are pressing the undo button without paying attention to what they're undoing
* At ] in June-July (same "colonization" edit-war I've posted before that was the catalyst for ] filing; these are just the O.maximov/ABHammad edits): ] (]), ], ], ], ]
* At ]: ], ] (], ])
* At ] May 19-20
**"Some" to "Numerous"
*** ] - changing {{tqq|Some prominent pro-Israel figures have described the protests as antisemitic, ...}} to {{tqq|Numerous antisemitic incidents, characterized by hate speech, violence, and discriminatory behavior targeting Jewish students, were documented during the protests.}}
*** ] - {{tqq|Allegations of antisemitic incidents were documented during the protests, ...}} back to {{tqq|Numerous ...}}
** Removing see also link to ]: ], ]
** ] removed content about violence by pro-Israeli protesters with edit summary {{tqq|One case is undue}}. However, they added (or expanded) content about single instances of violence by pro-Palestinian protesters on May 19 ] (literally begins the line with {{tqq|In one instance...}}), ], ], and ].
**] - changes {{tqq|allegations}} to {{tqq|incidents}}
**] - changes {{tqq|ethnic cleansing of Palestinians}} to {{tqq|displacement of Palestinians}}

My first complaint was at ABHammad's talk page (O.maximov was pinged): ]. My second complaint was at ] in July, which I notified O.maximov about ]. My third complaint was at ] (O.maximov was pinged).

Aside from the tag-team edit warring, the edit summaries are not accurate, and the edits push a pro-Israeli POV. ] (]) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
*None
No previous sanctions AFAIK, but multiple user talk page threads: ], ], ], ], ], ]


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*I alerted them on
], ]


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Above diffs are all edits ''after'' the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied ] to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to ] started . On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to ] about misandry, which another editor with edit summary {{tq|remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt}}. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.
Re {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s question about talk page edits:
* ] and the Nakba/"various causes" edit: ] discussion predates the account; no participation by O.max in the ] or ] discussions. O.max did vote in ] back in June, but otherwise no talk page comments about this issue (though there are talk page comments about other issues).
* ] and the settlement expansion edit, or the Jul 24 media-related edits, I don't see any relevant discussion on the talk page by O.max or anyone else
* ]: no talk page edits
* ]: three talk page edits in July:
*# ] - arguing for "re-" establishment, and "I will be adding this factual information shortly", which was followed by the Jul 3 edit diff'd above, which is just repeating the same edit that O.max previously made on June 11 (and ABHammad on June 10, July 2, and July 21, plus other editors on other dates)
*# ] - Agreeing with {{u|916crdshn}} that there is no consensus for "colonization" and arguing WP:ONUS
*# ] - calling for WP:AGF w/r/t 916crdshn (now CU blocked as compromised account)
* ]: O.max voted in the RFC the day after making the revert ]; no other talk page posts
* ]: no talk page edits


Before the level 4 warning, I guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. ]&nbsp;] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Something else I noticed today. I initially skipped over these diffs because of the innocuous edit summaries, but on further look, at ] on Aug 1, O.max basically rewrote it to turn it into a conspiracy theory -- as in, the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory: ], ], ]; there are more edits, but those three are indicative. Search the article (any revision) for "conspiracy" and note that the sources do not even come close to supporting this notion. It's a complete misrepresentation of sources and some of the most blatant POV-pushing I've seen, even in the context of the blatant POV-pushing I've been complaining about lately. ] (]) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:{{userlinks|PeleYoetz}} (]) has ] the "O.maximov Aug 3 edit 1" diff'd at the beginning of this report. This is their first edit to the article, no edits to the talk page. ] (]) 15:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*
:@BK49: That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK ''is'' a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories ''involving'' the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself ''is'' a conspiracy theory, i.e., that the lobby doesn't actually exist. By analogy, there are lots of conspiracy theories involving ], that doesn't mean the Freemasonry ''is'' a conspiracy theory, or that they don't actually exist.
:We would not tolerate someone changing the short description for the Freemasonry article to {{tqq|Alternatively a conspiracy theory or group of fraternal organizations}}, but that is what O.max did at the Israeli lobby article in ].
:The ] article mentions conspiracy theories in the last lead paragraph, it does not mention conspiracy theories as the first thing in the lead sentence. But O.max changed the lead of the Israeli lobby article from ]: {{Tq2|The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom are individuals and groups seeking to influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in favour of bilateral ties with Israel, Zionism, Israel, or the policies of the Israeli government.}} to ]: {{tq2|The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories regarding a "Jewish plot" to influence Britain are individuals and groups and alternativly refers to those seeking to influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in favour of bilateral ties with Israel, Zionism, Israel, or the policies of the Israeli government.}} These edits are, if not POV-pushing, at least a serious misapplication of ]. ] (]) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::@BK: I agree that "The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories" is not, in and of itself, a conduct problem. And if that was all there was, I wouldn't have brought it up. But when you put that change -- putting the "been used to raise conspiracy theories" right up front -- together with ] ("Alternatively a conspiracy theory or "), and then the comment here in this AE ("Many sources use the word conspiracy also ... Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby ... I wanted to show both sides ... The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby ... Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead."), this shows, I think quite clearly, that he thinks there are ''two'' views of the Israel lobby: (1) it's a conspiracy theory, it doesn't exist, and (2) it's a real thing that exists. That is not a content dispute, that is -- take your pick -- POV pushing to suggest that there ''isn't'' such a thing as an Israel lobby (that would be a moon-is-made-of-cheese level falsehood), a reading comprehension problem (because ''no'' source questions whether the Israel lobby exists, and ''no'' source says that its existence is, itself, a conspiracy theory), or a total lack of understanding of ] (because the fact that the lobby has been used to raise conspiracy theories is, by no means, the very first thing that should be said in the article, under any reasonable application of WP:DUE, even an incorrect, but reasonable, application would not arrive here).
::So this isn't a good-faith content dispute, it's either POV pushing or CIR, both are conduct problems. The end result is that they changed the article to question whether the Israel lobby actually exists -- that's a major problem, in my view. It's disinformation, not just misinformation. It's an attempt to cover up the very existence of the Israel lobby, to cast doubt on it. If it comes from a genuine belief that maybe the lobby isn't real, it's CIR; otherwise, it's POV-pushing.
::Combine that with the other edits, and I think it's pretty clear. Look at my examples, from the top, they are:
::* Aug 3: changing the text from the Nakba was caused by Israel to the Nakba was caused by "various causes"
::* Aug 3: removing content about Israel and media that makes Israel look bad or second to an Arab country, while adding content that makes the Arab media look bad instead
::* Jul 24: eliminating content that says Israel ''continues'' to expand settlements
::* Jun 24: a bunch of changes, but including changing "expelled or fled" to "fled or expelled," removing a line about Palestinian right to resist; adding attribution of Palestinian justifications to ] (a particularly controversial figure, but by far not the only person who has said what is attributed to him), while expanding Israeli justifications in wikivoice
::* Jun 11 and Jul 3: removing "colonization" from the lead of Zionism
::* removing mention of Israel of the indigenous genocides article
::* on the campus protest article, changing "some" to "numerous," and removing violence by pro-Israelis but adding violence by pro-Palestinians
::* Recasting the Israeli lobby in the UK article to say it's maybe a conspiracy theory, and doubling down on that interpretation at AE
::Anybody got an example of O.max making a pro-Palestinian edit? I suppose YMMV but it's pretty clear to me. ] (]) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ]



===Discussion concerning O.maximov===
===Discussion concerning DanielVizago===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by O.maximov==== ====Statement by DanielVizago====
Levivich, I respect different thinking. You must respect that I think differently. If your purpose is for me to say that Palestinians fled or were expelled then there is no problem. I have no problem saying this and other stuff. It is a problem that you post on my page just a link and expect me to press the link. It is a problem that first thing I get from Nableezy is that he asked me if I have prior accounts. The answer is no. I don't know why you behave like this. You have a problem with a person, you speak to the person. I invite you to my talk page to discuss things. I saw Levivich posted stuff on 1RR. Bro, you are a senior editor. You know it's not 1RR. I also did my best to kindly explain to Unbandito who posted it why it's not a 1RR violation. All the warnings you posted are really unrelated. Nableezy asks me if I have another account. I told him - no. Here someone says I edited against consensus, I say - look at the page! You see many people are saying different things! You posted a message I got because I was not writing encyclopedically on Economics, I understood and improved my writing. But Levivich, why don't you post on my talk page and explain? Nableezy can you explain which edit I did is against consensus and which consensus (You posted discussions)? I have no problem talking, look at all my talking in Israel and in other articles. I have no problem to talk. If you wish to collaborate as I do, you should treat others with respect, and this does not help to improve the temperature. ] (]) 10:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
: {{ping|Vanamonde93}} the Israel lobby is viewed by some as a conspiracy to say there is a Jewish plot to control the UK, the British media… Many sources use the word conspiracy also:
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
: Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby that influences UK politics like other countries which other sources indicate. The body had a big problem of synth and no sources to back stuff. I fixed it (it is back to the same because of the rv). The body said many things and the lead didn’t. I wanted to show both sides. It’s also what I edited in the short description. If the page is only supposed to show the real lobby I am sorry, I thought it was neutral to show both sides. ] (]) 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::], ], ]
::The article talks also about British Politics, MPs and their remarks in the body. , , , , , , , The article also talks about Jewish community being scared of what some say is a conspiracy theory. . Here sources talk about Israel/Zionist lobby as exaggerated as a conspiracy theory. ,
:: the {{tqq|“The Power of the Zionist Lobby” subsection under the “United Kingdom” section as well as the sentence on “engaging in conspiracies about Israel’s power that draw on anti-Semitic tropes”.}},
:: , page 1,7,8
:: talks directly about Israel lobby being used as a conspiracy and explains why,
:: {{tqq|“Conspiracist antisemitism is found across the political spectrum. For every left-winger who believes there is a well-funded Zionist lobby inventing fake smears of antisemitism to prevent a socialist government, you will find a comparable right-winger who holds George Soros responsible for immigration”.}} ,
:: , page 110 - 112, all relevant, specific sentence also relevant {{tqq| “The conspiracist element of ‘new antisemitism’ is most obvious in discussions about the existence and the machinations of what has become known as the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. A common assumption of left-wing anti-Zionist critique is that Israel commits its fiendish acts with the unwavering political, military and financial support from America and to a lesser extent Britain, whose governments are in the grip of the menacing and all powerful pro-Israel lobby”.}} , {{tqq| “A more recent example of how such ideas can appear in mainstream media coverage of Jews, Zionism and Israel was found in the 2009 dispatches documentary by the British journalist Peter Oborne, entitled “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” … This misses the point that using such a framework to explain Jewish or Zionist political activism relies, however unwittingly, on ideas and common understandings drawn from preexisting antisemitic conspiracy theories in order to make sense to its audience. At the very least, it was inevitable that antisemites would, and did, interpret it as an endorsement of their own conspiracy theories about Jews”.}} , , pg 60, 65,66, page 31 to 32 from “Within Labour” to “modern Labour politics” {{tqq|“Labour MPs were found to have used “anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that the complaints of anti-Semitism were fakes or smears.” A case cited in the report involved former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who said “the Israel Lobby,” which aimed “to undermine Corbyn’s leadership,” was responsible for allegations of anti-Semitism against fellow Labour MP Naz Shah. Livingstone later resigned from the party. The EHRC found a further 18 “borderline cases” involving local councillors, election candidates, and branch officials. It also noted several incidents of political interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office in addressing complaints of anti-Semitism. ”}}. My mistake was not to attribute to Haaretz in the lead. I am sorry about it. I know about WP:NOR and WP:V but I thought that it was established enough without written attribution in the lead. ] (]) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::No ], my opinion is irrelevant. Like ] said, the body existed before. The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby, just like every country has a lobby. Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead. That is why the body and the page before me, speaks of both Groups and individuals who seek to influence policy and alternatively a conspiracy theory. That is what sources say and that is what I wrote. ] (]) 19:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::]
::::There exists groups and individuals who want to advance Israeli interests in the UK, they are called by some the Israel Lobby.
::::My description is: The Israel lobby is a term used to refer to groups or individuals who advance Israeli interests in the UK or alternatively to a conspiracy theory that exagerates Israeli/Zionist influence in the UK.
::::I am open to other ideas. ] (]) 06:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::] Yes I am taking this seriously. Thank you for the understanding. ] (]) 11:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by Nableezy==== ====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ].
We had a previous consensus on this material and edit warring without a new one should result in sanctions for disruptive editing. Full stop. ''']''' - 19:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:@] ] ''']''' - 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:]. ''']''' - 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:Also I wouldn't call the bit on violence in protests ''some fairly straightforward partisan editing'', that is blatantly tendentious. Either you think a single instance does not belong or you think it does, but O.maximov apparently changes what they think based on whose violence is being discussed. Violence by pro-Israeli protestors, oh dear not we cant have that, violence by pro-Palestinian protestors must be included and expanded. That is, to my mind, textbook tendentious editing. The bit on the seizure of the AP equipment, an event that resulted in the US demanding its return and was covered extremely widely, is likewise textbook tendentious editing. Same for ] with its easter egg wikilinks and the fact that the source it cites for supposed reasoning leads with "The government will not make public the details of position papers submitted by the security services saying that Al Jazeera has harmed Israeli security, following a cabinet decision on Monday to temporarily shut down the Qatari news network." They are not simply politely pushing a POV, which itself is banned. There are users that are not engaging in attempting to productively discuss content disputes with the aim of coming to some agreement or consensus on what to include, they are simply acting as roadblocks. This is one of them. ''']''' - 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ])
====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
* adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of
Checkusers should be run on O.maximov and ABHammad.
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ])


] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding "It is a problem that first thing I get from Nableezy is that he asked me if I have prior accounts. The answer is no." From a purely technical perspective the question seems reasonable to me. When I look at the proximity of the O.maximov account to other accounts using a variety of different techniques, I would like to understand why the closest matches are to blocked accounts with a single master, and , for example. Perhaps these are false positives, but if they are not, this AE report is a waste of time and sanctions will have no impact. ] (]) 12:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by Simonm223====
Regarding "I find the calls for CU as unconvincing...". A reason to conduct a CU is that the amount of work required to process the AE report, and the effectiveness of potential sanctions are dependent on the result of a CU. It's about efficiency and the optimal ordering of actions. If an account is found to be a disposable sockpuppet account, there is no need to spend time evaluating their editing or imposing sanctions. Assuming good faith is not the optimal approach in all cases. Other approaches can have more utility. I would argue, like FortunateSons, that it should be standard practice for AE reports once the report has been accepted as worth spending time on. The potential costs associated certain actions, like edit warring, are different for socks and non-socks. So, the likelihoods of the behavior are different. Willingness to edit war is itself an indictor that an account may be a sock because the cost of sanctions to them are zero. ] (]) 05:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. ] (]) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by ABHammad====
This is the second time this month I have seen Levivich doing what seems like a weaponization of this noticeboard against editors who do not share their point of view based on their politics (and they are unsuprisingly joined by others). Previously, they accused me and other editors of tag teaming—a very serious allegation—without providing substantial evidence. While I received a 0RR sanction (rightfully), their tag teaming allegations were dismissed. Going over the new allegations, I don't see anything close to a sanctionable violation of anything. It's all content disputes that can and should be solved through discussions. But, I don't see any attempt by Levivich to do so, nor did they even try to discuss the issues with O.maximov personally. And the above claims about 'previous consensus on this material' are clearly false (if anything is happening on ARBPIA right now is forced controversial changes that take place without any attempt to achieve consensus). I think it might be time to consider sanctions of the ] sort. ] (]) 12:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by FortunateSons==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning DanielVizago===
I think the suggestion of a CU is reasonable, and really should be standard practice in any topic area as a contentious as this one once there is reasonable suspicion.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''


*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Having said that, I’m not seeing conduct that goes beyond the ‘standard’ biased editing, with decent talk page engagement and no “horrible” conduct. While I’m not inherently opposed to banning for such conduct, a ban for that might catch some of our more experienced editors too, and despite some people’s well-reasoned objections, I don’t think banning most frequent contributors and starting fresh is likely to do us any good. As such, biased editors (and this seems to be closer to bias than ‘true’ partisanship) are the unavoidable norm.
*I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. ] (] • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->


]
Regarding the filer, while I wouldn’t say that we are at a boomerang yet, they should be mindful about weaponising AE; considering the past talk page discussion, a sockpuppet investigation would have been the more productive avenue for this. ] (]) 16:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by fiveby====

{{u|Levivich}}, take a look at the for the version prior. It has ]'s "cabal of Jewish advisers", ]'s "financial grips", and ]' "enjoyed wallowing in her own filth" to start. I don't think you can claim that the article is merely concerned with the ''existence'' of an Israel lobby. O.max did not write that section, "the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory" is your framing and near as i can tell ], and if not limited to 'existence' or UK there are a number of sources which will use the words "conspiracy theory".

{{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} what exactly is so ''extremely concerning'' about ], or the other two&mdash;no doubt bad edits to a bad article&mdash;which call for a TBAN for those alone? ](]) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
](]) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Barkeep49}} The best source here is probably ]'s ''The Arc of a Covenant'', but it's really mostly discussed in relation to U.S. and Walt and Mearsheimer work. In my opinion those are bad edits, that politics section should probably be dialed back on the conspiracy POV, it's just the hyperbole here is unwarranted. Thanks for looking. ](]) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by xDanielx====

The accusations of whitewashing, dogwhistles, or Nakba denial based on {{tq|various causes}} are a stretch. Similar language remains on the current ] page: {{tq|various reasons}} and {{tq|numerous factors}}. We also have a whole page examining the various causes of the exodus: ]. There's a consensus among scholars (today) that expulsions occurred, but not about the significance of other causes. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 05:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

===Result concerning O.maximov===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*{{u|Nableezy}}, which material are you talking about? The Nakba in the lead of Israel?{{pb}}I'm seeing some fairly straightforward partisan editing, but not anything severely out of the norm in the topic. Although that is a bit concerning, I'm more interested in where their editing has violated established consensus. ] (]) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree with Vanamonde93 about those most recent diffs. ] (]) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|Fiveby}}, unilaterally changing the topic of an article from lobbying efforts by a country in another country to {{tq|a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy}}. ] (]) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
*I'm still parsing some of this; to me the distinction between tendentiousness partisanship is at least partly determined by whether the user is justifying edits on the talk page and/or otherwise engaging in discussion; I'm less happy with reverts or substantive changes in the absence of consensus without accompanying ''substantive'' talk page engagement. ] (]) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I am still struggling to wade through the morass of talk page discussions. But Levivich's recent diffs are extremely concerning, these two in particular: , . I would consider a TBAN for those edits alone. ] (]) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*::A unilateral POV change would be concerning, per SFR, but to me it's more than that; it's a unilateral change to the lead and framing, without supporting sources and without an equally substantive change to the body. The statement justifying it here at AE is bordering on a competence issue. (the 9th O.maximov provided, the first I clicked on) speaks of a single British MP, who claimed Tony Blair was being influenced by a coterie of Jewish advisors, and who was roundly criticized for saying so. It has no bearing at all on the claim that the Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise; because there is no substantive analysis of the phenomenon in the source at all. I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of an Israeli lobby; but if someone writes that it is a conspiracy theory, I expect that claim to be backed up by multiple heavyweight sources explicitly supporting that. O.maximov needs to show they can comply with ] and ] before they are allowed to mess around in a contentious topic. ] (]) 15:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::Your errors go a lot further than that, O. maximov. There is a profound difference between "Criticisms of UK policy toward Israel have veered into anti-semitic conspiracy theories" (which your sources support) and "The claim that an Israeli lobby exists in the UK is a conspiracy theory", which is effectively what you wrote. You appear to be unable to separate that nuance, which to me shows you have gotten too close to the material you're trying to edit. Further argument here isn't going to fix that; you need to show that you can edit within the bounds of policy, outside the CTOP. ] (]) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::I haven't investigated this, but presuming what Vanamonde writes is true (and I do) conflating {{tq|anti-semetic conspiracy theories}} and {{tqq|Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory}} is more than just a failed nuance. It is, in my mind, POVPUSHING. ] (]) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::So I have now examined many (but not all) of the sources presented. I do find there to be support to the idea of the Israel Lobby being called a conspiracy in the UK. I think this is most clearly seen on p.10 of . Not all the sources I looked at make the grade, but enough of them do that I feel more comfortable saying that we're in content, rather than conduct, territory with that particular piece. ] (]) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Re: Levivich (cc fiveby): I agree with {{tqq|That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory}} and your subsequent freemason comparison is a good one. But in the diff you then cite it says {{tqq|The ''idea of an Israel lobby'' in the United Kingdom '''has been used''' to raise conspire theories}} (emphasis added). I think you're focused on the italics part where as I think the bolded part is drawing that distinction - though the italics part would need to be reworded to avoid the problem you're seeing. I'm not sure this line should be in there at all, but all of this strikes me as with-in the bounds of a content discussion. Someone can be wrong/out of consensus on content in a contentious topic, even with regularity, and not, for me, cross the line into a conduct problem. To return to the first comment I made in this thread (below as it so happens), I AGF that a non-native English speaker can imperfectly walk the line of "There are conspiracies about the Israel Lobby in the UK" versus "The idea that there is an Israel Lobby is a conspiracy theory". I would expect, however, O.maximov to be a lot more careful about this distinction going forward. ] (]) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{re|Barkeep49}} My concern with this isn't with the content in sources dug up post-facto: whether or not an alternative description of the Israeli lobby exists in one or more of those sources is, I agree, a content matter outside our jurisdiction. My problem is that O. maximov introduced that framing into the article without any supporting source material, and then when confronted with this, produced a lot of sources that do not support his thesis either. It doesn't matter to me that one or more of the sources partially verify the thesis; the fact remains he claimed a lot of others did, when they did not. If the matter was solely a failure of attribution he should have been able to produce substantive sourcing; instead what he's produced looks very much like a list of sources talking about broader Jewish concern about people in government mentioning anti-semitic conspiracy theories. I am willing to allow that perhaps there wasn't a problem of intent here, but if that's the case then there was a problem of competence. Either way, to me a sanction is indicated. ] (]) 04:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*Not sure when/if I will have time to look into the merits of the complaint here as it seems like a lot of background reading is required. However, I know enough to say that I find the calls for CU as unconvincing as I do the call for a boomerang on BM. ] matters just as much, if not more, in contentious topics. ] (]) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*:@] does the Israel Lobby exist? Whether or not it does what would your description of it be? ] (]) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish|Barkeep49}} It does not look to me as though we are getting more input here, and discussion has died down somewhat. If I am reading correctly, SFR and I are in support of a TBAN (by default, an ARBIPA TBAN); BK49 is hesitant. BK49, if my final argument above does not persuade you, is there a lesser option we can come to agreement on? Or are you opposed to a sanction altogether? I hesitate to impose something on a 2:1 margin. ] (]) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm willing to assume a touch of good faith that they were making a good faith attempt to summarize some of the conspiracy theory material in the article, so I'm also comfortable with a lesser sanction or just a warning. Most of the diffs I view in the same way I'm discussing down in ]. ] (]) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*::What would you propose? ] (]) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::Oh geez, who knows? There's really nothing between warning and topic ban for battleground/sourcing issues, so a severe finger wagging not to do that again and be careful in the future is about all we can do if not topic banning. ] (]) 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'd be much more amenable to a logged warning if {{U|O.maximov}} is willing to acknowledge that those edits were not compliant with ] and ]. At the moment I'm seeing no acknowledgement that they've done anything wrong. ] (]) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I did rethink things after yours and Levivich's comments, which is why I asked the question above . I find O.maximov's answer good enough, though not excellent, and so I think I'd be opposed to anything harsher than a logged warning. ] (]) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*::In the interest of putting this to bed I will support a logged warning, but I will note for the record that without a sharper sanction I believe issues will recur. ] (]) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] I hope you take this warning seriously; it would not take much for me to support a topic ban should you repeat some of the mistakes that led to the filing of this thread. ] (]) 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)


==Givengo1== ==Ekdalian==
{{hat|Givengo1 confirmed to be a sockpuppet at ]. ] (]) 21:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Givengo1=== ===Request concerning Ekdalian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|The Kip}} 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Givengo1}}<p>{{ds/log|Givengo1}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ekdalian}}<p>{{ds/log|Ekdalian}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
* ARBPIA ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->

# - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to ]
User initially made these two edits to the Current Events portal:
# - Changes wording/content on two Israel-Hamas war current event blurbs # - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
# - Does the same (including saying an Israeli civilian was "liquidated" rather than "killed") # - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
# - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to ].

# - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a ], just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on , also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
I then issued the standard CTOP alert and ]. They did not respond/acknowledge, then started editing again on the topic:
# - Same as above but edit warring

# - Additions to a passage regarding Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank # - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock {{noping|Nobita456}} "stop behaving like Nobita please"
# - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
# - More content changes, multiple replacements of "Israel" with "the Israeli regime"
# - Comparatively minor, but replaces Arab-Israeli conflict with Israeli-Palestinian conflict # - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
# - calling a ] edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->

# Explanation
N/A - albeit, see #1 below?
# Explanation


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Has a <nowiki>{{Ds/aware|ipa}}</nowiki> template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022

Made aware on .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On , many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like {{noping|Sitush}} have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by {{ping|Dennis Brown}} on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of ] as diffs above prove.
# Based on similar areas of interest, POV, and especially the wording of edit summaries, I suspect this editor may be ], who was previously blocked in May for two weeks after similar ECR violations. I ], but they didn't respond.
# Outside of the ECR violations, the user seems to edit with a distinct POV; their edits have often seemed to downplay/euphemize Islam-related violence/controversy ( ) while heavily emphasizing anti-Islamic and/or Middle Eastern violence/controversy (prior Mannheim stabbing edits regarding the far-right organizers, , ). While I'll openly admit that, in my opinion, ''some'' of these changes aren't entirely wrong, simply changing the wording to one's POV without good reason/sourcing isn't the way to go about it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::: @], if that acct and the aforementioned IP are both this same guy, that means they’ve already been arb-blocked twice - ouch. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:@], just noticed - Givengo and SelfStarter made almost the exact same edits to ], including adding the rather uncommon word “injuriously.” In light of that, it seems to be a pretty clear ]. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* ].


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
===Discussion concerning Givengo1===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Statement by Givengo1====

====Statement by Bellerophon451====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
I think this user is quite obviously an alt account of blocked user {{User|SelfStarter2}}, based on the content of his edits and the pages edited.
--] (]) 16:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

===Result concerning Givengo1===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*{{yo|Givengo1}} There is an ] in place for ]. This means that, until you obtain the ], you may '''not''':
:#Make any edits to articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, ]; nor
:#Make edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all ] with the exception of ].
:The ''sole'' exception to this is to make ] on a ]. Editors ordinarily receive the extended confirmed user right when they have contributed 500 edits and their account has been open for 30 days.{{pb}}You were first informed about this restriction , but proceeded to that are ] the ] after being informed of the restriction.{{pb}}Would you please explain, in your own words, why you believe making these edits was or was not appropriate, in light of the restriction?{{pb}}— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 00:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*The current events portal editing is pretty quacky but not enough for an immediate block. I'll wait to see if they make any statement here. ] (]) 12:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Blocked and opened ]. ] (]) 18:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astropulse==
{{hat|{{user|Astropulse}}'s appeal of the ] from ] that was imposed by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} is declined. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>

<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Astropulse}} – ] (]) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : 7 day block on article Hammas

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Astropulse

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}

; Notification of that administrator : https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#appealing

===Statement by Astropulse===

a) this was my first possible violation of 1RR - instead of a 24hrs block, a 7 day block was placed - which i think is undue.

b) there were never a disruption to Misplaced Pages. After a possible minor violation of 1RR, Most of my changes still stand on the page. Some of it were improved upon.

c) i believe the offending edit i reverted itself is violation of 1RR. This is because another editor reverted several of my edits in one edit. According to ] "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." In this case, there were intervening edits by another user. The edit i reverted also violated ] , ] and ], also ]

d) I was asked to revert my changes, but I refused because doing so would have introduced NPOV issues into the article. Several days have passed, and no one else has reverted my changes, as they are beneficial and have gained growing consensus on the talk page.

e) editor who accused me of 1RR violation - is not a involved editor. I have settled the differences with involved editor and everything is resolved. And hence a block at this point is undue. it is a punishment, rather than a genuine attempt to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. This violates wiki blocking policy https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

f) I'm not convinced i violated 1RR -> I removed a tag on the page ] -> this was being counted as a revert. But i think it is just a edit because that tag was not needed anymore. No one re-added the tag - after i removed it. I dont know what is the problem. The only revert was this ] because another editor reverted two people edits here ] which itself i believe is a violation of 1RR
] (]) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:@] first and third edit you quoted aren't reverts. these are changes to long standing lead. if you are calling it as revert, most change's on wiki will be a revert. As per ] im entitled to make than change. second is questionable. i have good reasons to do it. No one added it back after i removed it. So there is no conflict or disagreement on that one. ] (]) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::@] @] @]
::] recommends a 24hr block for first time offenders. You also have to look at if there was disruption to wiki. I dont think there was. Like i said many times. Most of my changes still stand to this day. No one has reverted it fully. You are all punishing me for attempting to edit on good faith. I think this is against ]
::I still think this block is punitive instead of preventative https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals
::If there was disruption, a block might be okay for Deterrence.
::It also article says "For eg. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved."
::I think, Refusal to revert is not indication of likelihood of repetition in this case.
::I already said many times - issue were resolved by the time i was asked to revert and there were growing consensus on the article talk page. Editor who i reverted said, they are fine to remove the NPOV tag after the recent changes. I also think you have to balance your actions with other policies. ] ] ]
::] says "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." ] (]) 05:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::cc @] ] (]) 05:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@] two admins have indicated they wouldn't have put a p block - but warning instead. Why is it that you still wish to decline the appeal ? ] (]) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] You said "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" - This was never my defense. Its something you are making it up. You decided to place a 7 day block - after i owned up to my mistake and explaining all the context. (Everyone can read my last reply in original enforcement request.)
:::::You are now claiming that the some text i removed as per ] which was written weeks or months ago is a revert. I didn't even know this is the case. ] (]) 06:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
Their appeal demonstrates that they still don't understand what a revert is, and that they believe their own view of NPOV exempts them from 1RR. Everyone believes their edit is the neutral one, which is why it is not an exemption as listed in ]. This lack of understanding leads me to believe we're going to be back here fairly soon. ] (]) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Red-tailed hawk}}, , , and .
:{{u|Newyorkbrad}}, a warning is fine if they remedy their violation, which is how I normally handle this. When there is a refusal to remedy a blatant violation and the behavior is confined to a single areticle I generally start with a one week pblock, which you can see ]. ] (]) 14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally, {{tq|I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article.}} That is what almost every edit war in the topic area is about. One side thinks NPOV is violated, and the other feels it is violated if the prose is changed. That is why "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" isn't an acceptable edit warring defense. ] (]) 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AstroPulse ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by The Kip====
Just my 2 cents as a frequent AE observer - the most recent response is, at least to me, beginning to give off the impression that the user is simply ] at this point. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 08:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====

===Result of the appeal by Astropulse===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*{{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} For posterity's sake, can you link to the diffs that violated the 1RR? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
**{{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} The offending diff and the context are given in the original enforcement thread. ] (]) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you for that. I do see a clear violation of ] there. The user was that this is a contentious topics area. This looks like an extremely ordinary case, where a warning or reminder would have been sufficient had the appellant self-reverted after being asked, but the appellant refused to do so.
*:Restrictions like ] require editors to ], as there is no technical mechanism to enforce them directly. As such, they require an editor to acknowledge them and ''choose'' to abide by them, even if this does not generate a content outcome that they desire. If they do not choose to abide by these restrictions, such as by blowing through 1RR and ''also'' refusing to self-revert, then that justifies the use of more restrictive measures (such as partial blocks). A partial block of one week is reasonable in this circumstance (though one of 72 hours probably would have been equally so).
*:As such, I think that the sanction is reasonable in light of the appellant's refusal to abide by 1RR, and I would '''decline''' this appeal. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. If this is indeed a "first offense," I would probably have warned rather than p-blocked, and certainly would not have p-blocked for a full week. A block (of any reasonable length) from just a single article is not a severe sanction in and of itself, but it can have a stigmatizing effect and will also be invoked if this user's comes to be scrutinized again. In short, I am somewhat troubled, but I am not sure my disagreement rises to the level of !voting to overturn the sanction. Looking forward to other admins' thoughts. ] (]) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I also don't think I'd have p blocked in this instance. However, I think it was with-in the range of admin discretion given the facts in play here - if at the very upper end. As such I don't think the ] has been met and so I also am in favor of declining this appeal. ] (]) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*Perhaps a shorter p-block could have done the job, but before p-blocks were rolled out a site-wide block would have been considered quite normal for a 1RR violation. This is far from the most severe block we could have handed out. And loath as I am to disagree with {{U|Newyorkbrad}}, I agree with SFR's assessment above; every single edit-war in this topic has participants who believe they are the ones correcting an egregious NPOV violation. That is not, in my view, reasonable grounds for leniency. ] (]) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
** My point was not that an editor's strong belief in the correctness of their edit is ground for an extra revert. It is that such a belief can sometimes explain what might otherwise seem to be a pig-headed refusal to self-revert an identified violation, which would put ''their own name'' on the content they strongly disagree with. Here, the editor's declining to self-revert seems to have made the sole difference between a warning and a weeklong p-block. I understand the value of offering an opportunity to self-revert as an alternative to blocking immediately, but especially given that the offense seem isolated and has not been repeated, I remain somewhat troubled by this scenario. ] (]) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
**:"I recognize what I did was wrong, will fix it, and make promises to not do it again" does suggest to me that the preventive need is less than for someone who refuses to make amends. In this case the editor refuses to even acknowledge that they violated 1RR and so I don't really get to weighing the legitimacy of the reasons they give for not wanting to revert. ] (]) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*Absent any substantial change among responses by admins here, I will be closing this in ~18 hours as declined. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Astropulse}} Merely on a bean count, we have multiple admins that have affirmatively said that they would not overturn this, including me and Barkeep49 ({{tq|I also am in favor of declining this appeal}}). For the other two: there's one who appears to be somewhat sympathetic to the appeal but expressed they were on the fence on whether or not to accept or deny the appeal (Newyorkbrad), and one who hasn't explicitly stated that they would accept or decline but seems to argue that they don't think that NYB's arguments are in any way mitigating and that they agree with the sanctioning admin in that regard (Vanamonde93). For sake of argument, even assuming that none of the arguments here are so strongly out-of-policy that the would be downgraded when looking at their ], I do not know how one would close this any other way; the ] for overturning an appeal is {{tq|a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE}} to accept an appeal and overturn a sanction, but we appear to have a rough consensus of administrators that lean towards affirming the partial block.
*:Since there were comments from uninvolved admins today, I'll wait another 18 hours before closing this with the appeal not being accepted. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Astropulse}} I think the partial block is/was preventative because you don't acknowledge you violated 1RR. The 3RR guidance was written before partial blocks became possible and so likely needs ot be revised to reflect modern practice. Short blocks was referring to very short blocks - like minutes or hours - which were once a thing some admin did. While I wouldn't have chosen this particular sanction myself, I think it is one with-in admin discrestion for contentious topics. ] advises that {{tqq|When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages's norms and policies are more strictly enforced}} and here we are. ] (]) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==3E1I5S8B9RF7==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}<p>{{ds/log|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}</p>


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
]/]/], Round 1, at ]: "]" I collapsed and archived that thread.

Round 2: "]" I also collapsed and archived that thread, posted a ], and started ] (what is the genocide death toll according to RS), with sources, without the FORUM/BLP/NOR violations.

Round 3, in the thread I started: ], ]; the second one is after the CTOP awareness alert.

Across all 3 rounds, they brought exactly (in Round 2), and that source does not contain the words "Deif" or "genocide". Otherwise, no sources. 11 out of 12 of their most-recent (Aug 3-7) contribs are the above FORUM/BLP/NOR violations.

In sum, 3E1 is persistently using this article talk page to discuss whether certain individuals/groups are innocent enough to be considered victims of genocide, without any real engagement with RS. This violates our FORUM/BLP/NOR policies.

Note that there has recently been an increase in press coverage of this article (see the press template at the top of the article talk page for links), and with it an increase in disruption, and the talk page is currently ECP'd as a result. ] (]) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No blocks or CTLOG entries, some warnings on the UTP

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

@SFR/Van: Yes, it's the only one after the ARBPIA alert. There were previous alerts in other topic areas (see their UTP); I don't know if that counts as awareness under the new rules or not. I don't see this as "the first after a CTOP alert" so much as "the 11th in a row this week." The CTOP awareness alert is the reason this is at AE instead of ANI, but otherwise it's not terribly relevant in my view. CTOP awareness is a prerequisite for CTOP sanctions, but I don't think any CTOP sanctions are necessarily merited here. This doesn't rise to the level of a TBAN or anything that serious in my view; though disruptive, it's limited to one article, and I think this is the first complaint against an established editor. While they're not listening to me, they'll probably listen to admins. ] (]) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:I find 3E1's ] here {{tqq|Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the ], but not a death toll of ] in itself}} and xDanielx's ] here {{tqq|Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced, but this isn't entirely clear ... the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide}} to be very puzzling, considering ], the thread I started, begins with {{tqq|The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide ...}} and ends with {{tqq|Here are some sources ...}} followed by quotes from 5 sources that give a death toll of the Gaza genocide itself. They're both raising the same talking point, but the entire purpose of the thread I started is to address that exact point. I don't understand how two editors both missed this? ] (]) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Just got ], which speaks for itself. ] (]) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:Re SFR: not sure why you picked those two particular quotes to compare and not others (you should be comparing the entirety of what both editors have written), but in any case, the first quote is about opinion and the second is about RS, which is why the first quote is a FORUM violation and the second isn't. ] (]) 13:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::SFR: sure if it was a one time thing. I'm looking at their contribs and I see 16 out of the last 17 are this foruming. In three separate threads on the article talk page and in this AE and then back on the talk page even while this AE is going. Are we supposed to just let them continue like this forever, or at some point do they have to make reference to RS? ] (]) 13:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::Surely "Levivich and Selfstudier exposed their utter bias and inability to remain neutral, objective and rational regarding this issue.", which is in the 16th edition, is not kosher? ] (]) 13:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ]


===Discussion concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7=== ===Discussion concerning Ekdalian===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by 3E1I5S8B9RF7==== ====Statement by Ekdalian====
My comments weren't a forum, they were relevant questions to the controversial decision in the ] to include all Hamas militants, regarded as a terrorist organization by several countries, as victims of genocide, regardless if they fell as armed fighters in a battle. I can understand if this was narrowed down to only civilian fatalities, but the current article warrants a detailed explanation. I just wanted to hear a rational explanation if this can be accepted and hear other users' thoughts. My "inconvenient" question still stands unanswered; can terrorists be considered victims of genocide?--] (]) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:So you do agree that my original question is reasonable here? How would you anwser this question then?
:The purpose of the talk page is to discuss contentious issues of an article. If users cannot pose questions revealing contradictions of some articles, then Misplaced Pages should abolish talk pages. Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the ], but not a death toll of ] in itself, a term which is not universally accepted yet.--] (]) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Logged warning for what, exactly? '''can and should''' be used to improve the article by pointing out the glaring contradiction (and fallacy) in it. Are Hamas militants who perpetrated the ], and who were later killed for it, victims of genocide? Are terrorists victims of a genocide? My crime is that I pose this question. And I think it should be posed for clarification. Feel free to answer it, or if this question is forbidden, then just say it.--] (]) 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Selfstudier ====
I get that the reported editor has a beef with the article, having also . That's not a license to forum the talk page, repeatedly refusing to take the hint. Think this editor should maybe stay away from the page for a while. ] (]) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{Re|xDanielx}} I'm glad that you mentioned BM intervention in the middle of this contretemps, two days before the diff you have posted, , any idea what on earth was the purpose of adding <nowiki>{{npov|Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?}}</nowiki> other than to encourage the reported party in their talk page bludgeoning? How on earth is that a "content dispute"? Deif was not even mentioned in the article. ] (]) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:
.{{Re|3E1I5S8B9RF7}} See . The simplest answer to your (and BM) pointy question. If the killings are because of who they are, rather than because of what they did, then they may be victims. That question will be answered in due course by the court. ] (]) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. ] (]) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{re|BilledMammal}} The difference being that both Buidhe and myself are providing sources aimed at improving the article. Your attempting to hat them is as well rather tedious, I must say. ] (]) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|BilledMammal}} Since you neglected to notify Buidhe, I did it for you.] (]) 18:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC) :Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. ] (]) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as ] (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. ] (]) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


*In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when {{u|Nobita456}}'s sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. ] (]) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
.] (]) 17:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Orientls}}, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. ] (]) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Bishonen}} I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, {{u|Orientls}} seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. ] (]) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Orientls====
{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} I am at a bit of a loss to understand the thinking here, this is just straight up soapboxing, including while we are still at the boards, I don't really understand why other editors are even bothering to reply to it.] (]) 13:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.
====Statement by xDanielx====
This isn't ] territory at all, since 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was raising concerns about content in an effort to improve it. Levivich closing the discussions as such seems inappropriate. It's also not ] to question whether sources are being interpreted or summarized correctly. One doesn't need new sources to question the application of the current ones. While ] applies to all namespaces, in practice its sourcing requirements are not enforced to the letter outside of article space.

Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced (''edit'': or rather that proper sources exist and can be added), but this isn't entirely clear. BilledMammal that it itself involves OR, since the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for ]. Giving a casualty figure for the war, and then a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, is not the same thing; one can believe that a genocide is occurring without sharing the view that combatant deaths are part of that genocide.

This seems like a normal content dispute, with no legitimate policy-based reason for closing the discussions or bringing it to AE. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{yo|Levivich}} you provided five sources, but none of them actually provide a count of genocide victims, as BilledMammal pointed out on the talk page. A statement that X people were killed in a war, and a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, does not amount to a statement that X people were victims of a genocide. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Sean.hoyland}} your argument seems to be that ] was violated, not ]. "Patently false" is not an argument, and it's hard to see how flagging a perceived issue in an article could be NOTFORUM territory.
:Regarding NOR, the policy {{tq|does not apply to talk pages}}. At worst one could say that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was suggesting a change which would have been OR had it been enacted. A NOR violation would require actually enacting the change.
:It also seem impossible to keep any count of genocide victims without bending NOR, since we don't have any reliable sources providing an explicit count of genocide victims. If we're going to enforce NOR to the letter here, we'll have to remove the victim count. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
"This isn't WP:NOTFORUM territory at all"...patently false and not helpful at all in my view. Rewarding easily avoided ] violations is counterproductive in PIA and has a cost. Editors who try to convince people that they have figured out how Misplaced Pages should count victims of an alleged genocide based on a personal decision procedure that makes sense to them should not be taken seriously. It's bordering on a competence issue. Buried inside 3E1I5S8B9RF7's unhelpful musings and irrelevant personal opinions there is a simple and reasonable point about statistics that could easily have been expressed by "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies", the key word there being policies. No need to start fires to get attention. I fully support Levivich's entirely sensible actions. I'm sure 3E1I5S8B9RF7 is a perfectly decent editor, but no one needs to hear about how they think victim counting should work. ] (]) 16:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.
{{u|XDanielx}},
* I think it's possible to understand quite a lot of the things that happen in PIA, the rule breaking, the defense of rule breaking etc., if you assume that people sometimes use an approach that can be characterized as 'the ends justify the means', an after the fact rationalization of non-compliance. But the ends don't justify the means. There's just a set of policies and guidelines that everyone has to follow.
* In this case, it seems crystal clear (to me at least) that the editor made statements that are inconsistent with talk page guidelines. There are numerous examples in that discussion where they try to get editors to discuss who can be counted as a victim and who can't etc. In general, in Misplaced Pages, I don't think this really matters much, but in PIA, I think it matters because there are very few knobs we can turn to try to improve the dynamics of the topic area. Strictly enforcing compliance in discussions is one of them.
* Let's assume everyone in that discussion agreed with the editor's proposed counting method. If you ask, 'Is that consensus consistent with policy?', the answer is no. So, that already tells me that, aside from being a misuse of talk pages, it is a pointless waste of everyone's time.
* To be honest, I don't really understand why so many editors behave this way, treat themselves as RS, when the alternative, just following sources and the rules, liberates editors from having to answer, or even think about, questions like 'is this a massacre?', 'is this a genocide?', 'why doesn't genocide law distinguish between combatants and non-combatants?' etc. My wife and I often argue over whether a thing is color A or color B. This happens, in part, because the mappings from wavelengths to tokens are interestingly inconsistent across languages. This is fun and all, but these kinds of discussions/disagreements shouldn't happen in PIA because we are supposed to just reflect reliable sources rather than elevate ourselves to RS-level and argue our theory of the case. We all know this. ] (]) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.
====Statement by BilledMammal====
It feels a little unfair to focus on 3E1I5S8B9RF7 when this is a problem on both sides.


{{ping|Bishonen}} While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this . By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. ] (]) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The editors advocating that we count every casualty as a victim of genocide are doing the same thing that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 is, by trying to convince people that they have figured out how Misplaced Pages should count victims of an alleged genocide based on a personal decision procedure that makes sense to them - the sources presented in support of that claim don't say that X many people are victims, only that X many people have died in the war. ] (]) 22:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Selfstudier}}, when used that way the template links to the talk page section, which at the time was titled "Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?". That section was soon after closed and archived by an involved editor, which is why the link stopped working. ] (]) 22:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Considering how that discussion has now proceeded, it would be manifestly unfair to warn 3E1I5S8B9RF7 but not other editors involved in that discussion.
:For example, Selfstudier and Buidhe are now engaging in discussions about who is a protected person, arguing that Hamas members are protected. This is no different to 3E1I5S8B9RF7 arguing that they are not - neither argument is relevant, as they aren’t based on direct statements from reliable sources about how many victims there are. ] (]) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Selfstudier}} And if the discussion was not about the death toll they might be appropriate. However, it is, and so divergences into who a protected person is are no more appropriate when the argument is that Hamas members are protected than it is when the argument is that they are not. ] (]) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by Buidhe ====
I posted evidence that the assumption that genocide victims are innocent and targeted for no reason apart from ethnic hatred is a misconception not found in international law. Also, that the attempted elimination of Hamas is described as part of the genocide by reliable sources. I agree with selfstudier that this is different from arguing the opposite based not on any reliable sources but only from personal opinions / misconceptions. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7=== ===Result concerning Ekdalian===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I will point out that I was ] by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. ] &#124; ] 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).
*{{u|Levivich}}, so is the sole diff from after they were given a CTOP alert? ] (]) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
==Alex 19041==
*:I have difficulty saying that if {{tq|Should every Hamas fighter and militant be included as a victim of genocide? In my opinion, only civilians should be included, meaning a figure of around 16,000 civilians according to Israel or more according to some other sources.}} is NOTAFORUM, that {{tq|The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the ]; some are about the war and don't even contain the word "genocide." I think we should base casualty counts on sources that are about the Gaza genocide specifically. Or in other words: in the ]es that say it's a genocide, what do they say is the death toll of the genocide?}} is not. ] (]) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*::Levivich, I would say that your position is obviously the correct one (how about we look at RS and see what they say?) but their edits are still reasonably about improvement of the article. They could have been better spoken, but "We're including every death in a war, I think we should only include non-combatant deaths" isn't out of the norm for talk page discussions and it points out the very reasonable issue that RS don't support what was in the article at the time. ] (]) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*Same question from me: is there evidence of CTOP awareness earlier? The single edit SFR notes is a bit of a NOTFORUM violation, but not at a level where I would consider any action for it alone. ] (]) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm okay with a logged warning. 3E1I5S8B9RF7, if you have concerns about the text, please raise them without any number of straw men and rhetorical questions. cannot reasonably be construed as an attempt to improve the article. ] (]) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*::(Please keep your comments to your own section.) A logged warning for violating ], and for ]. ] (]) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*Given Levivich's ] I would be in favor of a logged warning. ] (]) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

==Bluethricecreamman==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Bluethricecreamman=== === Request concerning Alex 19041 ===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|BilledMammal}} 23:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement: {{userlinks|Est. 2021}} 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Bluethricecreamman}}<p>{{ds/log|Bluethricecreamman}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Alex 19041}}<p>{{ds/log|Alex 19041}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] & ]
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
Violating ] and edit warring at ] by repeatedly reinstating the same disputed content:
#{{diff2|1230782834|17:49, 24 June 2024}}
#{{diff2|1238813865|20:28, 5 August 2024}}
#{{diff2|1238935047|13:21, 6 August 2024}} (self-reverted {{diff2|1238939634|13:51, 6 August 2024}} following talk page request)
#{{diff2|1239117395|12:44, 7 August 2024}}

They ], saying that because they self-reverted 13:21, 6 August 2024 they were free to re-implement the edit. However, my understanding is that self-reverting, particularly when done only after the self-revert is requested, doesn't permit editors to ignore the most recent revert when re-implementing the edit and doing so comes across as ].

It is relevant that an ], which closed as "no consensus". As the content was only in the article for six weeks, insufficient to establish it as the status quo, this means it should be excluded until a consensus is found to include it and editors should not be reinstating it even when done without edit warring or 1RR violations.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* ]
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|1197217847|16:29, 19 January 2024}} (see the system log linked to above).
* ]


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
* ]
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


===Discussion concerning Alex 19041===
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{diff2|1239382260|23:42, 8 August 2024}}

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Bluethricecreamman===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Bluethricecreamman==== ====Statement by Alex 19041====
* a) I've explained revert then self revert doesn't count towards the counter, but BilledMammal has been harrassing me and others in talkpage to self revert. Also like... wouldn't the applicable place for this report be the edit war noticeboard? ]. ] (])
* Seen some folks argue that no consensus means removal. ] states specifically "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Obviously, after that May RFC fails, we should probably keep the version of the article that had been in place since March with the included paragraph. ] (]) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
* Response to result: Glad to have been informed, will read the AC/CT more carefully next time. Will update my behavior accordingly. ] (]) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:* Doing a self-revert on last edit. ] (])


====Statement by ABHammad==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
I also noticed these problematic diffs, which seem to be part of a broader recent trend where disputed content is repeatedly inserted through edit warring in ARBPIA, despite being reverted multiple times. When asked to stop and wait for consensus, there are editors who reintroduce the disputed content anyway and insist that discussions should focus on whether the new content should be removed, rather than if it should be added in the first place. In some cases, they claim consensus exists, even when reverts indicate otherwise. Here are a few examples for these re-adds,leading to controversial content now appearing in the article:
* ]: beside Bluethericecreamman, the disputed content was also restored by others following the RFC closure as no consensus: , .
* ], where a new description as native/indigenous was introduced through edit warring:
* ], where a scope change in all but name was introduced through edit warring, , , while a RM to move to "UNRWA and Israel" is now ongoing.
* Similar dynamics can be found also at ]. This is how its primary description as a "movement that ... aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe." was introduced, despite many reverts and substantial talk disagreement.
This seems why this may be part of the reason why Misplaced Pages is not pereceived as trustworthy anymore by some outside media when it comes to ARBPIA. ] (]) 08:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by Left guide==== ===Result concerning Alex 19041===
{{yo|Bluethricecreamman}} No, that noticeboard is only for normal edit-warring subject to 3RR in non-contentious topics. For edit-warring in designated contentious topics with stricter revert rules, this is the appropriate venue. ] (]) 10:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
All else being equal, ] policy clause stipulates that disputed material stays out of an article unless and until there is a consensus for its inclusion: {{tq2|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 20:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Selfstudier====
{{Re|BilledMammal}} 6 weeks? Where's that from? (also see ] where myself and others aren't in agreement with your rather simplistic take on this matter). As for who started it, that would have been on 5 August, a month and a half (!) after ? ] (]) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

===Result concerning Bluethricecreamman===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
<!--
*A self revert does not reset the revert counter, in my opinion. Beyond that {{re|Bluethricecreamman}} I suggest you re-read the ] given your comments as from what I read here you to need {{tqq|edit '''carefully''' and '''constructively'''}} (emphasis in the original). In contentious topics {{tqq|Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced}} and so this self-evert resets your ability to do other reverts. In general your response here - including the suggestion it's the wrong forum which it's not - indicates you don't understand what it means to be a contentious topic and don't understand that norms and policies being more strictly enforced are exactly about this sort of thing. ] (]) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt">
*:Given Blue's response I am ok closing this without further action. ] (]) 19:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*I think a reminder that long term edit warring is still edit warring wouldn't go amiss, although that goes for most editors in the topic area. ] (]) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


*To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got ], it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
==Bajaria==
*(came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.] (]) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Blocked by {{u|Theleekycauldron}} for two days for violating ECR. ] (]) 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)}}
*I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this ] alone ''across all namespaces''. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. ] ] 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Bajaria===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|The Kip}} 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Bajaria}}<p>{{ds/log|Bajaria}}</p>

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
User in question initially made two edits to ] concerning the Israel-Hamas war and related:
#
#

They were subsequently on their talk page, although the edits were not reverted.

I later noticed them while editing the current events portal - ''after'' receiving the CTOP notice, they've been on a rush of additions to prior (often months-back) CE portal entries, almost entirely concerning the Israel-Hezbollah conflict and related:

#
#
#
#

I subsequently the ] on their talk page at 07:55 on 10 August, with an additional warning that they are not extended confirmed and therefore not allowed to edit in the area. They failed to respond, and later went right back to their additions:

#
#

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
N/A

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* Initial CTOP notice given .
* ] given .

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive in the way that a lot of ] non-extended confirmed editors often are within the ARBPIA area - looking through their CE contribs, I don't really detect an attempt at POV-pushing. The problem is that they've thus far been unresponsive to the notion that they're simply not allowed to be editing in the area at the moment, and they're also far further from XC than their contribution count makes it appear, given that a fairly large portion of their 430ish edits are ECR violations. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? ] (]) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::@] I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually, as in you’re not the NOTHERE disruptive type that usually gets slapped with ARBPIA ECR-related sanctions - your edits, for the most part, seem constructive. The problem is that you’re simply not allowed to be making them until you’re extended-confirmed. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 02:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@] To make it clear as possible:
:::* I am not encouraging disruption.
:::* I was complimenting you; I meant that it's unfortunate that this case had to be filed, because your edits seem far more constructive than those of many others who've violated ECR in this topic.
:::* It had to be filed, however, because you did not respond to, if not outright disregarded, the warnings that you're simply not allowed to edit in the topic as you are not extended confirmed.
:::] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
===Discussion concerning Bajaria===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by Bajaria====
:"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? ] (]) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
The fact that the editor chose to respond with "Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service?" rather than something like "Oh no! I didn't realize I wasn't following the rules. Apologies. I'll follow them from now on." is worth highlighting. Editors shouldn't get to pick which policies and guidelines apply to them. ] (]) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

:I suppose I'm an independent free spirited adventurous out-of-the-box-thinking soul with a biting sense of sarcastic humor, rather than just immediately being a sheeple but then again is; "I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually..." by The Kip meaning they is encouraging any kind of disruptive behavior? But then again it might be a cultural difference. ] (]) 06:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Bajaria===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
* '''Blocked''' for 48 hours, since they're literally making ARBPIA edits as the case goes on. ] (] • she/her) 06:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==]-related pages==
==PeleYoetz==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning PeleYoetz=== ===Request concerning ]-related pages===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 20:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Beeblebrox}} 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PeleYoetz}}<p>{{ds/log|PeleYoetz}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|]-related pages}}<p>{{ds/log|]-related pages}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


I ''think'' this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of ] to cover all articles related to ], as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
New three-month old account, same old edit wars.
* ]
** Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE): {{u|Kentucky Rain24}} (KR) ], {{u|האופה}} ], ], {{u|ABHammad}} ] (]), {{u|O.maximov}} ], ], ], ], ], {{u|Icebear244}} ], , ] (predicate edit for ] report), ''']''' - first and only edit to the article with edit summary {{tqq|Reverted to the last stable version ...}}
** ] - {{tqq|There's clearly no consensus here ... I see 9-10 voices against the change.}}
*** {{u|Icebear244}} ], filing ]: {{tqq|There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version.}}
*** Icebear244 ] clarifies it's 9, not 7: {{tqq|You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too.}}
*** ]: {{tqq|... At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing}}
*** Of the 9-10 editors, 3 have been blocked, 1 TBANed, 1 0RR, and 3 currently have pending AE reports
* ] - "various causes" / "various reasons": ], ], ] (predicate edit for ] report), ], ''']''' - first and only edit to the article, with edit summary {{tqq|there is no consensus for this new change}}. No talk page posts.
* ]
** ] - removes it entirely in their first edit to the article with edit summary {{tqq|this article is about UNRWA involvement in October 7, not the history of Israeli-UNRWA relations, removing recently added material that totally changed the scope}}
*** They had not participated in the talk page discussion prior to reverting
*** One talk page message immediately prior to the revert: ]; more after: ], ], ]
** ] - removes it entirely in their first and only edit to the article with edit summary {{tqq|the scope was changed without real discussion on the proposed change}}
*** They had not participated in the discussion on the talk page prior to reverting
*** Two talk page messages immediately prior to the revert: ], ]


In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. ] was probably hit hardest, but ] got some too, as has ], which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in ] related articles, but haven't checked for myself. ] ] 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


:Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per ].
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):]
:I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. ] ] 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. ] ] 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


Outside of the editors I've reported to AE, in this topic area, right now, I don't believe you will find other examples of what this report shows: two editors, "Editor A" and "Editor B", where Editor B:
# Repeats Editor A's edits, votes the same way as Editor A, or otherwise "backs up" Editor A
# Three times at three different articles
# At articles they've never edited before
# Where they've also never before participated on the talk page
# Where they contribute nothing to the article ''except'' backing up Editor A
# Within the first few months of editing
We can even drop #6, I still don't think there's another example outside of what I've posted at AE lately. {{yo|Vanamonde93}} Would it change your mind if, instead of three times, it was six times? Here are three more examples: ], ]; ], ]; ], ]. As a bonus, here's a seventh example, this time the order is reversed: ], ]. This is not normal editing; this isn't something other editors do. But if we allow this to happen, if we say this is an OK thing to do, then others will start doing it, too. ] (]) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ]


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning PeleYoetz=== ===Discussion concerning ]-related pages===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by PeleYoetz==== ====Statement by ]-related pages====


====Statement by Selfstudier==== ====Statement by Isabelle====
Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe {{u|Valereee}} has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Until recently I had no real involvement with this editor other than giving an awareness notice in July. Just to add to Levivich diffs:

At ], , arrives 2 minutes after האופה (aka HaOfa) edit and changes the SD from Town in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights -> Druze town in the northern Golan Heights, an obvious POV edit.

At ], shows up at ] same day as nominated by HaOfa, no prior article edits or at talk page. Agrees with HaOfa.

Same pattern at ], no prior involvement and then consecutive reverts, HaOfa then PeleYoetz.


====Statement by Valereee====
It is doubtful that this pattern is coincidental. PeleYoetz role appears to be as back up for HaOfa, to support their actions.
Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. ] (]) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning PeleYoetz=== ===Result concerning ]-related pages===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*I don't see what action I could reasonably take here. The ideal approach to a content dispute is for all parties to engage substantively on the talk page until it's sorted, via RfC and outside input if needed. Across the ARBPIA conflict, editors don't do this; instead are slow-moving multi-party edit-wars, and considerable stonewalling on talk pages. When this behavior becomes egregious I'm open to sanctioning anyone and everyone involved, but I don't see anything here rising to that level. A ''lot'' of users could stand to engage better on the talk page(s). ] (]) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
-->
*:I'd be interested to hear from PeleYoetz in light of the most recent diffs. As I've said elsewhere, agreement between parties heavily invested in the topic is to be expected; a similar pattern from editors not substantively engaged implies off-wiki coordination. ] (]) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:@]: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. ] (]/]) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm generally addressing this at ] since it's basically the same report, but these types of patterns are wildly easy to find looking at anyone who is involved in the topic area. In less than ten minutes I found more damning "evidence" for two other editors active in the topic. As I said there, if we're going to sanction based on these patterns it would have to be evenly enforced and boy howdy it would be a mess. ] (]) 12:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::Also, ] is already ECP and ] has semi-protection. There's no protection on ], but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l ] (]/]) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I think tag-team edit-warring is disruptive. If regulars aren't willing to not be disruptive, then yeah, they've kind of forced our hand. ] (] • she/her) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is ''already'' in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

==האופה==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning האופה===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|האופה}}<p>{{ds/log|האופה}}</p>


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
We continue with the same edit wars:
* ] - removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE), this time with edit summaries:
** {{u|Kentucky Rain24}} (KR) ] {{tqq|per מתיאל's edit summary}}
** ''']''' {{tqq|reverting politicized and inflammatory recent addition to lgf}}
** ] {{tqq|there's an active discussion about this, don;t change a long standing version until it is revolved}}
** {{u|ABHammad}} ] {{tqq|Restoring last good version before recent POV edit. This is under discussion, no consensus has been reached, and anyway this source definitely cannot be used with wiki voice}}; ] {{tqq|Removing this recent addition from the lead due to its editorialized and synthesized nature, which relies on problematic sources: Morris, who does not mention settler-colonialism; Jabotinsky, a primary source from a century ago used anachronistically; and Finkelstein, known for fringe views.}}
** {{u|O.maximov}} ] {{tqq|in this edit you have reinserted extremely controversial content (the use of "colonization" and statements by fringe scholars) that has been reverted before. Please don't edit war, and instead refer to WP:ONUS}}
** ''']''' {{tqq|yes, this content is sourced, but WP:ONUS says that While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included, it requires consensus, and the responibility for achieving it is on those seeking to include disputed content.}}
** ] {{tqq|it's in the 4th prgrph}}
** ] {{tqq|clearly no consensus for colonization at this stage (per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS), and re-establishement is a fact (see History of ancient Israel and Judah)}}
** ''']''' {{tqq|Restoring previous lead, undoing changes there were FORCIBLY introduced, with no consensus ever reached on the matter and in violation of WP:ONUS. At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing}}
** {{u|Icebear244}} ] {{tqq|The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing.}}
**
** ] {{tqq|as we all know this framing never achieved consensus for inclusion}} (predicate edit for ] report)
** ] {{tqq|Reverted to the last stable version of the first paragraph before disputed changes sparked a two-month-long edit war. Consensus was never reached despite extensive discussions, so any further changes will likely require an RFC}} (predicate edit for ] report)
** ''']''' {{tqq|undoing disruptive restoration of disputed content. Please start an RfC}}
** 25 talk page edits:
* ]
**Replacing "]" with "]" or "various reasons"
***Removing "Nakba" from lead: ], ] edit summary {{tqq|haven't seen any clear consensus for this recent addition}}
***June 8 RFC launched: ]
***Replacing "Nakba" with "various causes"
****] {{tqq|replacing oversimplified, narrative-style framing that still haven't gained consensus with what can be said in WP:VOICE}}
****] {{tqq|disagree, there is an ongoing RFC on this, there is no consensus}}
***Adding "various causes" or "various reasons"
****] {{tqq|last consensual version of this before weight changes}} (predicate edit for ] report)
****] {{tqq|this phrasing has been stable for a while now}}
****] {{tqq|there is no consensus for this new change}}
****] {{tqq|restoring last stable version before inclusion of disputed content without clear consensus. Changes should follow discussions and RFCs, not precede it}}
*****This was ''not'' the last stable version; rather, "various causes" was added during the ongoing RFC
*****Note this edit: ] {{tqq|the rfc has just started, wait for it to conclude}}
*****We had a discussion about this edit at ], and while their last comment there was reasonable, immediately prior to making that comment, they made the Zionism revert diff'd above, so I came here instead of continuing discussion
** Removing "continues to expand" settlements
*** ] {{tqq|this one paragraph, also trimming repetitive}}
*** ] {{tqq|This can be trimmed without changing the meaning}}
** Removing "illegally occupied"
*** ] {{tqq|there is no consensus for this change}}
*** ] (same Aug 10 diff as above)
**Tel Aviv is not the largest city
***]
***]
***] (same Aug 10 diff as above
*** ... because ] is the largest city, because ] is part of Israel (it's not): see comments at ]
**14 talk page edits:

More of this editor's edits have been diffed at ], ], ], and ]. Note the similarity in edit summaries across these edits. ] (]) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

:Re SFR: I wasn't counting warnings as sanctions and I'm not aware of Blue being involved in the Zionism edit war. When you say "there is no consensus," are you counting the views of the 3 blocked compromised accounts, the editor with a TBAN, and the editor with 0rr? If you remove these sleeper/new accounts that are tag-team edit warring, there are only like 2 editors who actually object to including "colonization". There is consensus to include it in the lead. That's what separates one side of the edit war from the other. ] (]) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Of all possible admin responses, including totally ignoring this, the most dangerous one is saying there is no consensus because a group of new/sleeper accounts has suddenly appeared to question mainstream views. "No consensus to include" is the goal of the bad faith actors. ] (]) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:More @SFR: I think you're looking at this superficially. The complaint isn't "someone reinstated a prior edit!" If that were true, if all we did was count reverts and award a point for each one, then yeah, there's plenty of points to go around. As an example, look at the "various causes" edit war. {{u|Jeppiz}} ] and {{u|Alaexis}} ] also reinstated that content in the middle of an RFC, just like PeleYoetz and האופה. But I didn't include Jeppiz and Alaexis in this report or file any AE against them. Why? Because Jeppiz and Alaexis aren't going around reinstating each other's edits across multiple articles. They didn't start editing at the same time and jump into the same discussions and edit wars on the same side on articles they never edited before. Yes, all four editors made the same edit; but only two of them show a long-term pattern of this style of editing (actually short-term since the two haven't been editing in this topic area very long). PeleYoetz and האופה are significantly disruptive; Jeppiz and Alaexis (and the editors you mentioned) are not. I don't believe anyone can put together a "diff train" for Jeppiz or Alaexis or Selfstudier or anyone else like these diff trains that I've been posting at AE; this pattern is unique, and rather obvious to me. ] (]) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:@SFR: those are 4 examples over 2 years. Can you find 7 examples within the 3 months? Or within the first 3 months of either account starting editing? This isn't just about one person reinstating another person's edits; I beg of you to make your analysis deeper. Consider more variables, make comparisons more specific. ] (]) 12:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::One of those variables is the content. If I filed a report showing new editors tag teaming to say that Obama wasn't born in the US, I doubt anyone would respond with "but other editors edit war, too." If other people are tag teaming right now, let a report be filed, and let's examine the edits. ] (]) 12:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::Test your theory. Set the start date on the EIA to 4/1/24 (or any three month period) and see if you can find 7 examples of tag teaming on 7 different articles between Isk and Self. And if you do, see if what they're edit warring over is true or not. And even if you want to ignore the content, look at the other variables. Like can you find 7 examples where they've never edited the article before or since, where the only contribution is to back each other up? Because what I'm showing you goes far beyond people reinstating each others' edits. ] (]) 12:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

SFR's 8 example edits provide a wonderful opportunity to show what the difference is between one side in an edit war and another:
# ] - , ,
#*Selfstudier is the #1 contributor to this article; Iskander is a top-10 contributor to the talk page, having made their first edit there back in January - neither are new to this article
#*The edit made here was the result of consensus following ''months'' of discussion, in which both editors participated
#*Both Self and Isk's reverts were reverting the edits of Pele and HaOfa (diff'd in their respective reports), neither of whom had edited the article before or since, nor participated in the prior talk page discussions, but who showed up "out of the blue" to revert a change that had consensus, and to re-instate that revert when it had been reverted
#*Self and Isk are upholding policy/consensus; Pele and HaOfa are violating it
# (])
#* A user says "The expulsion of Palestinians started only in April 1948 – six months into the civil war – and was a direct consequence of the conflict. According to Morris, the majority of the Palestinians fled out of fear of being caught up in hostilities, rather than being directly expelled." -- this is flat untrue, easily disproven by looking at sources on the subject, including Morris (for examples, see ], which has many sources quoted, including Morris -- I wrote that section specifically to counter this common "it didn't start until after" ] talking point).
#* Both Self and Isk point out it's not true
#* This is in no way "tag teaming"; one of the "sides" here is misrepresenting sources (violating policy), and the other two are disputing that; not sure why this edit is listed here
# (])
#*Self has been editing this page since 2019; Isk since 2022; both have participated in talk page discussions; neither are new to this page
#*First, let's look at the content: changing {{tqq|effective annexation}} to {{tqq|extended Israeli jurisdiction to the area}}. !!! That is ''one hell'' of a POV edit! Can you imagine writing that Russia "extended its jurisdiction" over Ukraine? {{lol}}! (That's without even getting into the US recognition part of the edit.)
#*Next, let's look at the edit war chain in full: (I'm not going to diff it, it's easy to see in the article history): GreekParadise (who made a few edits to the article earlier that week, and no talk page edits yet up to that point, and is a sleeper account that was inactive between 2013 and June 2024, and has edited nothing but ARBPIA since June) changes "effective annexation" to "extended Israeli jurisdiction to the area". Supreme Deliciousness takes it out. HaOfa (who had edited the article and talk page prior) puts it back in. Self takes it out. GreekP puts it back in. Nableezy takes it out. GreekP puts it back in. Self takes it out. GreekP puts it back in. Isk takes it out.
#*That's basically one editor adding some crazy whitewashing and trying to edit war it in, with an assist from a second editor. Those two are violating policy (and whitewashing history). The other four editors who took it out are upholding policy (and truth).
#*GreekP was sanctioned for this at ]
# (])
#*This is the long Zionism edit war we're all familiar with, which I've diff'd in this report and elsewhere. There are too many editors involved for me to go through each one of them here, but if anyone wants to, they can look at that chain and ask the same questions: which side has blocked/banned/never-edited-the-article-or-talk-page-before editors, and which side has longstanding contributors to the article; which side is editing to implement talk page consensus, and which side is contravening talk page consensus; which side is following the sources and which side isn't; etc. (Also, PS: it's a dispute about the word "colonization," not about "settler colonialism" specifically.)
# (])
#*Both Self and Isk are top-10 contributors to the article or talk page, having edited/participated since 2021 and 2022
#*The content: ], which is user-generated and WP:OR. It is sourced to ], which is '''red''' at ]. That's a reason to remove it on its own. But compare the map with and you can plainly see that this map differs from the source; the OR map expands the size of ancient Israel. (I'll let you take a guess how that overlaps with the claimed borders of modern Israel.) This map is a lie, it's OR and fails verification, and is anyway sourced to an unreliable source.
#*Isk takes it out; HaOfa (who had never edited the article before or since, and never posted on the talk page) puts it back in; Self takes it out; {{u|Uppagus}} (6 mos, 600 edits, one and only edit to the page, never posted on the talk page) puts it back in
#*Again: two editors who "swooped in" out of nowehere ''only'' to make these reverts, which clearly violate policy; the other two editors are longstanding contributors to the article who are upholding policy
#* After this edit, I am going to take this map out of the article even though I've never edited that page before, because it so clearly fails verification and is OR; let's see who reverts me...
# (])
#*Self edited the article since 2023; Isk is a top-10 contributor
#*Isk removes some unsourced material; {{u|Owenglyndur}} (5 mos, 1900 edits, never edited the article before, never posted on the talk page, later blocked for copyvio) puts it back in; Self takes it out
#*Same pattern: new editor swooping in to violate policy (restoring unsourced material) vs. two long-term contributors upholding policy
# - these are the same as #5 - SFR, I'm guessing you meant to put different diffs here; whatever they are, check them against this pattern and see: is it articles that Isk/Self have contributed to before vs. editors whose only contribution is to join the edit war? Is it one side upholding policy v. the other side violating policy? Without even knowing what the diffs are, I bet the answer is yes...
# (])
#* Self has been participating at this article since 2022; Isk is a top-10 contibutor, also since 2022
#* This is about the same map as #5
#* Isk removes it; HaOfa (never edited article before or since, no talk page posts) restores it; Self removes it; ABHammad (never edited the article before or since, no talk page posts) restores it; Isk removes it again
#* Same pattern: one side is new editors swooping in violating policy, the other side is longstanding contributors upholding policy
#BONUS: {{u|Nableezy}}'s ] to ] that SFR mentions. Since the Israel edit war is well-documented elsewhere on this page, I won't go through it step by step, but note that Nableezy is putting back the version that was there before an ongoing RFC opened, whereas the "other side" of this edit war are the same group of editors making a bold change ''during'' the RFC and edit warring to reinstate it, ''plus'' the change is the "various causes" whitewashing nonsense (very similar to the "extended its jurisdiction" whitewashing nonsense).
Clearly, there is a big difference between what Self and Isk are doing in these edits, and what the "other side" of the edit war is doing in these edits. We should '''not''' treat these two sides as the same. One side is regular contributors trying to building an encyclopedia (upholding policy), the other side is new/sleeper accounts who never edited the articles before or since trying to whitewash it (violating policy). SFR, I hope you see the difference? ] (]) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:@SFR: sure but I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboards (I'd probably go to ANI before arbcom; SPI is also an option; we may also at some point have an appeal at AN).
:I see you understand the difference but don't seem to care about them. I'd appreciate it if you explicitly addressed the differences though: why does "never edited the article before" and "policy compliant vs policy violations" not matter to you?
:Btw: I count 28 diffs in my original report, 12 of which are just repeating the Zionism diffs for convenience so folks don't have to go clicking around, so I think I'm ok there; your diffs don't count toward my diff limit. Also, it's a lot of edit warring to demonstrate, that can't be helped. I am over the word limit but there's no way to have this discussion in under 500 words. ] (]) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)



; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ]

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning האופה===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by האופה====

====Statement by Bluethricecreamman====
See also participation in this edit war (same one as the case involving me above) ] (]) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by ABHammad====
Time to get upfront? This is the latest of multiple reports by the same editor, where unsubstantiated claims are being expressed repeatedly in what may feel like a constant threat to potentially scare off editors with different views. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are valid attempts to restore the last consensus versions in the face of constant additions of disputed content through edit warring regardless of consensus and in violation of WP:ONUS. Although it is best to assume goodfaith, this is certainly becoming cumbersome and perhaps even humiliating for these editors. We may need to consider a potential ] in this case. ] (]) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:@], I think the reverts from the two editors are very different in substance. The lead for ] was recently changed to include a very controversial definition ("colonization of a land outside Europe") that has not achieved consensus. HaOfa appears to be restoring the last stable version and advocating for further discussion and an RfC on talk, while Selfstudier seems to be reinstating a new, disputed change despite considerable opposition (which, I must admit, includes me). I think this context should be taken into account. ] (]) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Selfstudier====
{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} What's that "warned for aspersions" about, please? ] (]) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Please change the misleading diff to reflect the situation. Thanks. ] (]) 16:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} That's a pretty fair misrepresentation of what has occurred at the UNRWA allegations article, the first diff is me doing what was agreed to in talk page discussions that have been taking place over a long period of time, it wasn't a revert and no-one was objecting to it until Haofa/PeleYoetz showed up together out of the blue to revert it.] (]) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Those discussions have been going on for months including prior to that and that is why there is also an RM in process to give effect to them. I am sincerely displeased that one editor has filed a complaint against two others and yet it seems that I am being put on trial by selective diff as a result.] (]) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} If sanctions need to be spread more widely then so be it, but the totality needs to be examined not just selected parts of it. That my name would show up at these articles is hardly a surprise, I would be surprised if it didn't, as I have been attending these articles for years, not months. As I have specifically commented at the other related case, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.] (]) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Re|theleekycauldron}} Who was I tag teaming with, please? Did you mean PeleYoetz and Haofa ? ] (]) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

::::{{Re|theleekycauldron}} Let me just parse that. The edits on the 10th are about different material than the edits on the 11th. Of the four edits on the 11th, I restored along with Tarnished Path while the actual reported editors here claimed to be restoring an earlier consensus version. It was my one and only edit for a month or more, so the answer to my question must be that I tag teamed with Tarnished Path, who I don't know from Adam. Are there any other examples of my tag teaming with Tarnished Path? Let me now go back to June/July. I made one edit in July, on the second, tag teaming with no-one, instead I was tag teamed by Vegan (now Tbanned) and Hammad (now 0RR). So nothing there. Let's have a look at June. On 6 June I presumably tagteamed with Unbandito against KentuckyRain(indeffed) and HaOfa (reported here). That's it, 3 edits. How on earth are those 3 edits construed as tag teaming edit warring??? ] (]) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{Re|theleekycauldron}} A simplification at least, no tag teaming. Except that now it is said that because I participated on the talk pages I must have been aware of earlier edit warring and that my revert therefore constituted a continuation of that edit warring (which I did not participate in) over a period of two months prior. I concede that I was aware of the prior edit warring, at least in general terms, but this construction strikes me as novel, to say the least.
:::::Should I have not reverted and instead started an RFC myself? Well, I don't think so, not in the circumstances, which can be adduced quite straightforwardly at the relevant talk page section, per my contemporaneous comments on 11 August at ]. As yet, of those calling for an RFC none has attempted to start one.] (]) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:::{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Seriously?? 3 totally unconnected diffs from 2022??? And a diff pointing to my opening an AFD in February this year? I really do need to get this straight. Levivich files a complaint against a couple editors for tag teaming and provides a bunch of diffs as evidence of that. I add a couple more. Then I am firstly accused of tag teaming with zero diffs/evidence of that based on a single revert that I made (my one and only edit to the article in over a month, followed up immediately on the talk page). Now, how does that work, exactly? Grateful for any coherent explanation. To reiterate, if someone wants to bring a case against me for tag teaming or for anything else, then they can do that, but not that a judge turned defense attorney attempts to find me guilty of I don't know what exactly, via selective historical diffs. ] (]) 12:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to do this properly, let's look at this editor interaction thing, I threw myself and Iskandar into it for 1 January to date (this year, not 2022), Well, the first noticeable thing is that a large majority of the results are talk pages. And RSN. So let's leave those alone and pick out an article instead, the first one we come to is ], that's a controversial one, so let's have a look a the detailed timeline for that. Oh wait, I made 109 edits but Iskandar only made 2, should we discard it or take a closer look at the 2? Let's see, what about ] article, 9 edits by Iskandar and 4 by me. There you go, I put it out there for anyone that wants to build their case against me. You could try it with others besides Iskandar, Nableezy, etcetera. I'll wait. ] (]) 13:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} If tag teaming is demonstrated, it should be sanctioned. One more time, waiting for anyone that wishes to bring a case against me for tag teaming using your diffs or any others. ] (]) 15:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by fiveby====
SFR, edits which restore the "various causes" language following {{u|IOHANNVSVERVS}}' comments ] probably deserve a more critical view. ](]) 16:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS====
I can add this quite balatant POV-push edit where HaOfa unilaterally removed the Israel Defense Forces from the infobox of ]. ] (]) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
The Zionism article has been targeted by numerous people using deception via sockpuppetry. Examples include
* Here come the Suns, Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100),
* ElLuzDelSur,
* Aroma Stylish, BanyanClimber, SoaringLL (AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון)
* ManOnTheMoon92 (Tombah)
So we know a) the article is being targeted by sockpuppets, b) socks edit war and c) the costs of sanctions for disposable accounts is precisely zero. Any decisions based on the notion of balance, sides/bothsidesism etc. should presumably take this into account because "sides" can't include accounts that are not allowed to edit at all. This is another reason why accounts reported (and commenting) at AE should have checkusers run on them, to avoid arriving at a false balance. ] (]) 09:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Iskandar323====

With regards to the examples pulled up below regarding aligned edits by myself and Self, isn't the issue raised above by Levivich more about actual slow-motion edit warring, not just joint appearances on talk pages? I'm not saying that editors don't naturally overlap on watched pages, but there's quite a significant material difference between edit wars on page and contributions on talk. ] (]) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Dan Murphy====
Last stable version, last stable version, last stable version. No consensus, no consensus, no consensus. These folks need better material. And saying a thing does not make it so. (Point being, the constant repetition of stock phrases - ones clearly at odds with the facts, in my opinion - by fly by reverting account is telling you something) ] (]) 21:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Nableezy====
Umm, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, if you want to say something about me the usual thing would be to ping me. No, I am not "continuing the long term edit war", I am restoring material that already had consensus. I am not even putting in the edit that I support, I am putting in what already has an established consensus for. If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great. Next time maybe ping me if you have a concern about an edit I make. If you really think my changing "fled" to "made to flee" and including "by paramilitaries and the IDF" is continuing an edit-war then feel free to justify that claim, rather than snidely assert it without so much as a the bare minimum notification that you are talking about somebody. ''']''' - 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:So restoring the pre-RFC content is somehow continuing the edit-war that the RFC is supposed to resolve but editors are changing during the RFC. Makes sense. ''']''' - 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, because being frustrated by an admin who has repeatedly attempted to put in place unjustified sanctions and who appears unwilling to look at past discussions or anything beyond the math of reverts is "about as battleground as it gets". And for the record, there ''was'' consensus on how to include the expulsions in the lead, see for example the discussion at ]. But all this is avoiding the point here. If an editor were to write "Poland lost the majority of its Jewish population due to ''various causes''" nobody would be talking about how there are two sides battlegrounding or edit-warring or any of the other superficial things you have as your sole focus. Youd call them a Nazi and kick them to the curb, and you would be right for doing so. But here, oh no, it's "battlegrounding". And oh of course I cant take off my blinders to see how one group of editors is so obviously editing in bad faith, that they are propagandizing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. And let me be frank, I am not under any misimpression that I will be able to convince you, or that I am lessening the chances of you finally getting to impose the sanction you have been itching to put in place on me. But this is bullshit, you have editors engaged in utterly bad faith actions, and all you can say is "". ''']''' - 19:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

===Result concerning האופה===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I don't find this, or the report above, terribly convincing. There are two sides involved in these disputes, and both are doing the same thing.
# ] - , , , , .
# ] - , , , , , and more going back.
# ] - , , .
*This doesn't actually prove anything except there is no consensus for a lot of these changes, and both sides engage in long-term edit wars for their preferred versions. We can tally up warnings and first times having edited an article, but that doesn't actually prove anything. Editors will show up at articles they have not yet edited, in fact every article that everyone has edited they had previously not edited, and huge numbers of editors have warnings and sanctions related to the topic. ] (]) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I was getting at Levivich's noting a {{tq|partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE}}. and BM. Nish has a logged warning, Bluethricecreamman has an open report. Just because editors agree with someone who has been sanctioned or has a pending report at AE doesn't mean their position on content is a problem. ] (]) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:The discussion at ], I assume, where you, Makeandtoss, Iskander323, Nishidani and Kashmiri discussed it? I am not at all surprised that when it was noticed by an editor from the other side of the battleground that they reverted. You were still part of the edit war there, but I'll adjust my statement a bit to make it more clear how events flowed. ] (]) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Selfstudier}}, I'm not trying to put you on trial, but your name came up when I looked at a few of the articles in these reports so you got used as an example. What I'm trying to communicate is that the types of diffs presented by Levivich are not uncommon, and when we're dealing with relatively small groups of editors the same names are going to show up next to each other a lot. You're not on the hook for that, and I'm saying that other editors aren't either unless there is some evidence of malfeasance or bad faith editing. If we're going to start sanctioning these patterns the sanctions are going to end up widespread if applied even-handedly. ] (]) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I want to be clear to {{u|Selfstudier}} and {{u|Iskandar323}} that I'm not proposing sanctions, this is just to illustrate my point.
*:# -
*:# -
*:# -
*:# - , first edit to talk page of article was an hour earlier
*:That was after a few minutes of looking. When people are active in the same topics this kind of thing is incredibly common. If we're going to ABF for these patterns then there is ''a lot'' of this going on and it should be evenly enforced. ] (]) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Selfstudier}}, again, not saying you're doing anything wrong, just demonstrating that if we're using the threshold of "edited the same page in support of each other without having first edited the page" than it's going to be an enormous problem.
*:{{u|Levivich}}, those were picked at random from the editor interaction analyzer. I'm sure you'll find hundreds more examples like that, as 20% of Iskandar's 46,500 edits are to pages also edited by Selfstudier, and 60% of Selfstudier's 37,800 edits are to pages also edited by Iskandar323. People who edit in this topic area edit the same pages, and people with similar views support each other. ] (]) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*::# The UNRWA edit above
*::#
*::#
*::# (part of the same dispute on settler colonialism)
*::#
*::#
*::#
*::#
*::That is without looking particularly hard. So do we want to start sanctioning for tag-team editing? ] (]) 14:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Levivich}}, you were already over the diff limit with your initial statement, and now we've gone far beyond that. I think the venue you're looking for to judge when AGF isn't necessary, how many edits to an article insulates you from tag-teaming, if newly EC editors are allowed the same privileges as established editors, what amount of poor content or content one side disagrees with justifies tag team editing, if someone who made an edit was sanctioned does that mean reverting them isn't reverting, and if there is off-site coordination among new editors in the topic, isn't AE.
*:::If you have to provide ~35 diffs and links in your initial report and it still needs back and forth with deeper analysis it probably needs to be seen by a committee of some sort, maybe of diverse views and elected by the community to deeply analyze a wide body of evidence provided by editors addressing complex, long-running conflicts. ] (]) 18:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Luckily, while this AE report is opened in part to look at edit warring at ] no one is . ] (]) 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|Nableezy}}, I didn't ping you because I was more concerned with showing that this edit war was still on-going to communicate the point that the editors reported here are not doing anything that is unusual or unexpected, and if we're going to sanction it there will be a lot of those sanctions going around.
*::As far as your edit not being part of the long-term edit war, and instead just being a restoration of consensus, there is currently ] on that point, and there has been a large number of versions of the Nakba/expulsion sentence in the lead. The version you restored is not a consensus version.
{{hat|Some versions of that sentence back to May 10th chosen at random}}
*::* {{tq|The majority of the Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.}}
*::* {{tq|Over both phases of the war, a majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled for various reasons}}
*::* {{tq|The next day, armies of neighboring Arab states invaded, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. A majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled due to various causes.}}
*::* {{tq|The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee by militias and the military, a core component of the Nakba.}}
*::* Pre-RFC start {{tq|During the war, the Palestinian population was expelled or made to flee by paramilitaries and the IDF, known as the Nakba.}}
*::* {{tq|The war saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba. A minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel.}}
*::* {{tq|Primarily as a consequence of the war, there was an influx of Jews, previously living in the North Africa and the Middle East, who were expelled or fled, beginning a near total exodus of Jews living in the Muslim world.}}
*::* {{tq|Primarily as a consequence of the war, from 1948 to 1951, 260,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout North Africa and the Middle East beginning a near total exodus of the more than 850,000 Jews living in the Muslim world, and whose descendants today constitute the largest Jewish ethnic identity group in Israel.}}
*::* {{tq|The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel's borders established over most of the former Mandate territory. The rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were taken by Jordan and Egypt respectively.}}
{{hab}}
] (]) 17:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*:If the issue is that a certain group of editors is tag-teaming to get around 1RR, or that people like to engage in long-term edit wars to get the article to look their own preferred way by force, wouldn't imposing individual ] restrictions be a way to stop that? Can't really edit war if you can't revert. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*::I will note that I am not generally a fan of imposing 0RR, as there is some natural ] to Misplaced Pages's editing that is often healthy. But if there are individuals in this area who:
*::#Write decent quality articles from the ground up;
*::#Engage in talk page discussions productively; and
*::#Nonetheless, have a habit of engaging in long-term edit warring in the topic area's established articles;
*::Then, we may have a case that a 0RR would work. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''Warn HaOfa and Selfstudier''' for the tag-team editing at ]. Being the fourth and fifth reverts, respectively, is beyond reason, and HaOfa actually participated in an edit war over the <em>same exact content</em> two months ago. Enough already. ] (] • she/her) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Why this and not for edit warring? ] (]) 12:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{yo|Barkeep49}} Sorry, i meant tag-team edit warring. If there are instances of them unilaterally edit-warring, I'd be happy to lump those in. ] (] • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{yo|Selfstudier}} No, I mean you. I thought you'd know that I'm referring to the edits to ] on August 10 and 11 where KlayCax removes some text, Nishidani restores it, PeleYoetz removes it, TarnishedPath restores it, HaOfa removes it, and you restore it. Looks like tag-team edit-warring to me, and not the first instance, but the third recent instance given that there were outbreaks of it in June/July. ] (] • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{yo|ABHammad}} I'm not even sure how to begin to engage with "my team's edit-warring is more justified because my team was doing it in the name of stability". Edit warring is <em>destabilizing</em>. Next time, ask an admin to lock down the page and start an RfC instead of doing that. Also, no, the last stable revisions were the ones before you made your edit to the page on June 10/before KlayCax made their edit on August 10. ] (] • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|y team was doing it in the name of stability}} is right up there with "they've edited the page before" in terms of justification. Add a dollop of "one of them is blocked for unrelated copyright violations" and we're cruising right along. ] (]) 18:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{yo|Selfstudier}} in which case this is a continuation of the edit war over the lead sentence that began in June and has basically continued on-and-off since then. Given the extent of your participation on the talk page and at these AE threads, you were certainly aware that that edit war happened. In that case, your diff is still intentional edit-warring. ] (] • she/her) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Levivich}} I'm not sure {{tqq|I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboard}} is true. You could, instead, just go to the community, or, truthfully, go to ArbCom (perhaps via ARCA) since this is an area that ArbCom already has "jurisidiction" with. I will say that I think AE is pretty ill served to your desire to consider multiple editors' behaviors in relation to each other. I think both ANI and ArbCom do that better. ] (]) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Along those lines, that seems like we may want to ]. After all, if there is another process that would handle this exact sort of dispute better, and if AE is {{tq|ill served}} to review this evidence, why would we not just have the better process handle this? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*::That's what I've been saying in the past few complicated reports. ] (]) 13:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd support – is the scope of the case the edit warring on the one page, or more broadly the battleground behavior? ] (] • she/her) 18:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::The edit warring is just a symptom of the battleground behavior, so battleground behavior more broadly. We literally have, here at AE, an editor {{sup|{{small|Pinging {{u|Nableezy}}}}}} saying {{tq|If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great.}} for an admin {{sup|{{small|me}}}} pointing out that they were continuing an edit war, and they've already been sanctioned for battleground editing. That's about as battleground as it gets. If no one but me is interested in sanctioning for that type of behavior then Arbcom is the route to take. ] (]) 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Nableezy}}, ''it's all bad'', that's why I'm calling the entire thing an edit war. You said {{tq|I am restoring material that already had consensus}}, despite there never having been a consensus for that. It was the phrasing edit warred in right as the RFC started, but that doesn't give it some special status, and especially doesn't make it consensus. '''''Everyone''''' should stop edit warring, but acting like the four edits to ] in the original report are the real problem doesn't pass muster. ] (]) 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Nableezy}} I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you ], consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. My understanding of why you're frustrated is what has stopped me for exercising one of the options presented there to uninvolved administrators. ] (]) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lima Bean Farmer==
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>

<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Lima Bean Farmer}} – ] (]) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#c-Dreamy_Jazz-2020-12-19T12:38:00.000Z-American_politics_2}}

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Dreamy Jazz}}

; Notification of that administrator :

===Statement by Lima Bean Farmer===

I am looking to appeal a topic ban on post-1992 American politics. These case would be more open and shut if there weren’t a more recent edit to this ban. The original ban was over 3 years ago for post-1932 American politics but was changed to post-1992 American politics over a year ago. I would like to edit in this section a bit more freely, and I have not faced any sanctions or other administrative action since then. I have made large structural edits to pages such as ] and ], demonstrating my ability to work with other editors to come to consensus while also using reliable sources when and where appropriate. In summary, since my last appeal, I have demonstrated more frequent Misplaced Pages editing that follows guidelines, helps productive editing, and understanding consensus for the past year. Having knowledge in the topic of post-1992 politics, having this topic ban lifted would allow me greater freedom for productive editing. Thank you for your decision in advance! ] (]) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Dreamy Jazz===

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====

====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====

===Result of the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->

Latest revision as of 06:44, 22 January 2025

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    שלומית ליר

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning שלומית ליר

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it

    ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:

    • 2014 to 2016: no edits.
    • 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
    • 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
    • 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
    • 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
      • Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
      • In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
      • Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
      • They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
      • they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

    More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.

    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notification diff


    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by שלומית ליר

    I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.

    As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.

    While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.

    I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. שלומית ליר (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Thebiguglyalien

    This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report

    Statement by Selfstudier

    To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint (2)

    I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by xDanielx

    @Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.

    In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Hemiauchenia

    This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive

    For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:

    If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Cdjp1

    As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Vice regent

    I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
    Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Luganchanka

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    RfC opened Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    20:27, 12 January 2025

    Discussion concerning Luganchanka

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Luganchanka

    The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions - 14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender" and First sentence. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
    As per Rosguill's comments:

    "Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."

    https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

    Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by NatGertler

    Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Luganchanka

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
      But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of whitewash before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state masturbated and ejaculated on camera, saying only graphic sex act. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka:
      WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy.
      — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
      It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (convicted child sex offender) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
      That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
      Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as an offense of the same grade and degree as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
      Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
      In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
      — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    BabbleOnto

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning BabbleOnto

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 11 January 2025 Sealioning
    2. 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
    3. 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
    4. 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

    This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by BabbleOnto

    I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.

    To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.

    I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.

    I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

    1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.

    2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"

    3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.

    4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.

    All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
      Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      • an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
        What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
        • Re:no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.
          Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.

    Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

    I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.

    That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Newimpartial

    As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.

    1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

    2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.

    3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.

    4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.

    It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Objective3000

    Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn.... Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by JoelleJay

    At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by IntrepidContributor

    I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().

    One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.

    I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.

    IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by TarnishedPath

    Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved..." despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    and again at Special:Diff/1270346091 TarnishedPath 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by berchanhimez

    This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Shibbolethink

    I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they could be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely could follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly WP:BITE) in that topic space (e.g. )

    We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN, where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (WP:ROPE). Just my 2 cents.— Shibbolethink 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning BabbleOnto

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
    Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
    As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tangential
    @Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.
    Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
    “OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
    WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
    1. Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
    2. Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
    3. Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
    The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
    When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
      @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? signed, Rosguill 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      @BabbleOnto, re:It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I think BabbleOnto is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to agree with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and move on. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. Seraphimblade 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.
      @BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Marlarkey

    Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Marlarkey

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    1. 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
    2. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
    3. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
    4. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
    5. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
    6. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
    7. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

    1. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
    2. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
    3. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*."
    4. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
    5. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
    6. 13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • @Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.
    Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Marlarkey

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Marlarkey

    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.

    My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.

    In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.

    In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.

    I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict


    The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.

    Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.

    I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr

    Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


    On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.

    Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.
      But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
    So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning Marlarkey

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

    Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. signed, Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


    Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:

    • Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice
    • Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
    • It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
    • Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
    • In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
    • Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

    I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

    • As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.
      You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    DanielVizago

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning DanielVizago

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.);
    2. 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
    3. 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources);
    4. 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
    5. 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
    6. 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
    7. 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • None
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.

    Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning DanielVizago

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by DanielVizago

    Statement by caeciliusinhorto

    Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.

    • Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
    • This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
    • this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)

    Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Simonm223

    Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning DanielVizago

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    ]

    Ekdalian

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Ekdalian

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBIPA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to WP:ONUS
    2. 21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
    3. 12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
    4. 19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to WP:ONUS.
    5. 15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a WP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on the talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
    6. 17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
    7. 19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock Nobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
    8. 14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
    9. 18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
    10. 18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling a WP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On Bengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like Sitush have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by @Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of focusing on the content as diffs above prove.

    I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to WP:NOTVANDAL. Nxcrypto Message 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Ekdalian

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Ekdalian

    I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when Nobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Orientls, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bishonen: I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, Orientls seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Orientls

    I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.

    This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.

    Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.

    @Bishonen: While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this new message. By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Ekdalian

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I will point out that I was canvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

    Alex 19041

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Alex 19041

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Alex 19041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA & WP:IBAN
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21 January 2025
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Alex 19041

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Alex 19041

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Alex 19041

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

    • To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got at ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). signed, Rosguill 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this CTOP alone across all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. Beeblebrox 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Denali-related pages

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Denali-related pages

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · block log)

    Search CT alerts:  • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:CT/AP

    I think this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of WP:CT/AP to cover all articles related to Denali, as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".

    In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. Denali was probably hit hardest, but Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute got some too, as has Denali National Park and Preserve, which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in Gulf of Mexico related articles, but haven't checked for myself. Beeblebrox 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per WP:CT/AP.
    I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. Beeblebrox 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. Beeblebrox 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint


    Discussion concerning Denali-related pages

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Denali-related pages

    Statement by Isabelle

    Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe Valereee has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. Isabelle Belato 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Valereee

    Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. Valereee (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Denali-related pages

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Beeblebrox: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, Denali is already ECP and Denali National Park and Preserve has semi-protection. There's no protection on Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is already in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. Seraphimblade 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic